Bridging the Intention–Behavior Gap in Hotel Guests’ Pro-Environmental Behavior

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

A review of the manuscript is attached.

  Best regards

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

 

We sincerely thank the reviewer for the careful evaluation of our manuscript and for the thoughtful and constructive comments. We have carefully considered each comment and revised the manuscript accordingly. We believe that these suggestions have helped us clarify the theoretical arguments, strengthen the methodological presentation, and improve the overall quality of the manuscript. Our detailed responses to each comment are provided below.

 

 

The review comments below are organized by manuscript section to facilitate the revision process and subsequent revisions.

1. Abstract : The abstract clearly states the research purpose, sample, methodology, principal findings, and practical contribution, which presents appropriate structure that is easy to follow. However, results should be interpreted more carefully, as the moderating effect of implementation intention between attitude and intention and actual pro-environmental behavior was not tested. Furthermore, the practical contribution could be stated more specifically, rather than in general terms.

Response

Thank you for this helpful comment. We agree that the role of implementation intention should be interpreted more carefully. In response, we formally tested its mediating role using PROCESS Macro Model 4 with bootstrap confidence intervals. The results showed that implementation intention partially mediated the relationships of attitude and behavioral intention with pro-environmental behavior. Accordingly, the abstract now reports the tested mediation effects rather than implying an untested moderating effect.

Concerning the intention–behavior gap because the study was based on cross-sectional self-reported data. In the revised manuscript, we retain “pro-environmental behavior” as the construct name, but we have clarified its conceptual meaning and measurement more explicitly. In addition, the practical contribution was revised to specify actionable hotel practices, including situation-specific prompts, clear recycling instructions, towel and linen reuse options, and accessible energy- and water-saving facilities.

The abtract is as below (p1, line number 11-26)

“This study examines the relationships among hotel guests’ pro-environmental attitudes, behavioral intentions, implementation intentions, and pro-environmental behavior, while also investigating the moderating roles of environmental knowledge and situa-tional context. Data were collected through a self-administered survey of 204 domestic Korean tourists who had stayed at hotels or resorts in Gangwon State, South Korea, and analyzed using SPSS 27, PROCESS Macro Model 4, and hierarchical regression analysis. The results showed that implementation intention was positively associated with pro-environmental behavior and partially mediated the relationships of attitude and behavioral intention with behavior. Environmental knowledge strengthened the rela-tionship between attitude and implementation intention but did not moderate the rela-tionship between behavioral intention and implementation intention. Situational context had no significant moderating effect. These findings identify implementation intention as an important indirect mechanism associated with hotel guests’ pro-environmental be-havior. Practically, hotels should provide situation-specific action prompts, clear recycling instructions, towel and linen reuse options, and accessible energy- and water-saving fa-cilities to facilitate guests’ pro-environmental practices.”

 

2. Introduction

The introduction is logically organized and clearly explains the importance of proenvironmental behavior in the hotel industry. The manuscript appropriately present the intention–behavior gap and justify the inclusion of implementation intention. It is observed that it remains unclear exactly which theoretical gap in the previous hotel industry literature, this study addresses? It would be good to reinforce this in sentence, or two.

Response

Thank you for this helpful comment. We revised the Introduction and added theoretical gap in the previous hotel industry literature as bellow (p2, line number 80-85)

“However, although previous hotel studies have extensively examined the antecedents of pro-environmental intentions, limited attention has been paid to the post-intentional process through which attitudes and behavioral intentions develop into situation-specific action plans and are subsequently associated with behavior. Moreover, few hotel studies have examined implementation intention together with environmental knowledge and situational context within an integrated framework.”

3. Review of the Literature

3.1. The literature review is comprehensive and includes many relevant and recent studies. Likewise, the establishment of hypotheses generally follows the reviewed literature, and the conceptual model is clear. However, it remains predominantly descriptive rather than critical. In several sections (e.g., the discussions of TPB, implementation intention, environmental knowledge, and situational context), the findings of previous studies are mainly sequentially summarised without critical comparison, discussion of inconsistencies in the literature, or identification unresolved issues. Going beyond passive reporting and strengthening the critical synthesis of previous research would help to justify the research gap more convincingly and provide a stronger theoretical basis for the proposed hypotheses.

Response:

Thank you for this constructive comment. We revised Sections 2.1–2.4 by adding critical synthesis of the consistencies, differences, and unresolved issues in previous research. Specifically, we clarified the limited attention to post-intentional processes in hotel studies, the different conceptualizations of implementation intention, the relationship-specific role of environmental knowledge, and the competing expectations regarding situational context. These revisions provide clearer theoretical justification for the proposed hypotheses.

At the end of point 2.1. Pro-environmental behavior (p4, line number 143-145) , we added:

“Although prior studies consistently support the positive relationship between attitude and behavioral intention, most hotel research has focused on intention formation rather than the post-intentional process leading to behavior.”

In point 2.2. The Formation of Pro-Environmental Behavior and the Role of Implementation Intention (p5, line number 196-206):

“Although previous studies have examined it as both a direct predictor and a mediator, these roles are complementary: implementation intention may be directly associated with behavior while also transmitting the associations of upstream motivational factors with behavior. By positioning implementation intention after attitude and behavioral inten-tion, the proposed framework extends the explanatory scope of selected TPB relationships beyond motivational intention formation to situation-specific action planning. This integration contributes theoretically by identifying a post-intentional mechanism through which attitudes and behavioral intentions are indirectly associated with pro-environmental behavior. However, these mediating relationships remain insuffi-ciently examined in the context of hotel guests. Based on the previous literature, the following hypotheses are proposed.”

 

In point 2.3. Environmental knowledge (p6, line number 266-269)

“Environmental knowledge has been examined as both an antecedent and a moderator, but its moderating influence has been tested across different relationships and contexts. Therefore it remains unclear whether it strengthens the formation of implementation intention from attitude, behavioral intention, or both.”

In point 2.4. Situational context (p7, line number 306-310)

“Although situational conditions may facilitate or constrain behavior, implementation intentions may reduce dependence on external conditions by linking situational cues to planned responses. Whether situational context still moderates the implementation intention–behavior relationship in hotel settings therefore remains unresolved.”

 

3.2. Furthermore, although the manuscript introduces TPB, implementation intention theory, and the intention–behavior gap model, they are largely presented as separate theoretical concepts. A clearer explanation of how these theories complement each other within the proposed conceptual model is recommended.

Response

Thank you for this helpful comment. We therefore added an integrative explanation to the Research Model section (p7, line number 317-332)

“This study examines the relationships underlying hotel guests’ pro-environmental behavior by drawing on selected constructs from the Theory of Planned Behavior and implementation intention theory, within the broader perspective of the intention–behavior gap. TPB provides the motivational starting point through attitude and behavioral intention, whereas implementation intention theory explains how general intentions are developed into situation-specific action plans. The intention–behavior gap represents the research problem motivating the examination of the post-intentional process.”

3.3. Before presenting the hypotheses, it is recommended to explicitly explain why implementation intention is expected to extend TPB in explaining the intention–behavior gap and how this theoretical integration contributes to existing theory.

Response

Thank you for this helpful comment. The revised manuscript now clarifies the role of implementation intention as below (p5, line number 199-205)

“By positioning implementation intention after attitude and behavioral intention, the proposed framework extends the explanatory scope of selected TPB relationships beyond motivational intention formation to situation-specific action planning. This integration contributes theoretically by identifying a post-intentional mechanism through which attitudes and behavioral intentions are indirectly associated with pro-environmental behavior.”

 

3.4. Perhaps the biggest shortcoming is observed in H5 and H6, because it is hardly explained why exactly these links are moderated. Iti s mostly stated that other studies have found such effects, but without theoretical argumentation. Therefore, it is recommended to explain more clearly why these specific moderating relationships were proposed and how they are supported by the underlying theories.

Thank you for this important comment. In the revised manuscript, the original Hypothesis 5 was renumbered as Hypotheses 7-1 and 7-2, and the original Hypothesis 6 as Hypothesis 8. We revised Sections 2.3 and 2.4 to clarify that environmental knowledge functions as a cognitive resource that can strengthen the formation of implementation intentions, whereas situational context functions as an external enabling or constraining condition affecting whether implementation intentions are translated into behavior. Refer to line 239-254 and 294-310.

 

“Previous studies have identified environmental knowledge as an important cognitive factor that helps individuals translate pro-environmental attitudes and intentions into more concrete forms of behavioral preparation. In their meta-analysis, Hines et al. (1986) emphasized that knowledge of environmental problems and possible solutions provides individuals with the information needed to identify appropriate environmental actions (Kollmuss & Agyeman, 2002). Subsequent empirical studies have similarly shown that environmental knowledge is closely associated with environmental attitudes, behavioral intentions, and pro-environmental behavior by enhancing individuals’ understanding of the consequences and appropriate courses of environmental action (Liobikiene & Poškus, 2019; Liu et al., 2020; Pothitou et al., 2016). In the tourism and hospitality context, such knowledge may be particularly relevant because tourists must translate their general environmental attitudes and intentions into specific behavioral choices within unfamiliar consumption settings; accordingly, environmental knowledge has been associated with stronger environmental attitudes and behavioral intentions (Cuong, 2025), pro-environmental purchasing behavior (Kim et al., 2018; Muna et al., 2025), and intentions to visit green hotels (Damijanić et al., 2023).”

 

Previous studies have also confirmed that situational context plays an important role in determining whether pro-environmental intentions and plans are enacted as behavior. Grimmer et al. (2016) explained that contextual factors such as time, price, product availability, and ease of purchase can strengthen or weaken the relationships between purchase intention and implementation intention, as well as between implementation intention and actual behavior. Liao and Yang (2021) further found that situational constraints affect the extent to which pro-environmental intentions are translated into behavior, and that these effects may vary depending on the type of behavior. Kim and Lee (2023) likewise emphasized that contextual conditions such as ease of purchase and trust in eco-labels shape whether consumers are able to carry out environmentally responsible choices. These findings suggest that situational context functions as an external enabling or constraining condition that can influence the extent to which implementation intentions are translated into pro-environmental behavior.

 

4. Research Method 2

4.1. The methodological procedure is clearly presented and described (sampling and data collection procedure, measuring instruments and statistical methods). More information regarding the mixed-method data collection would improve transparency. It is certainly necessary to report the number of online and onsite respondents and clarify whether online and onsite respondents differ in any significant way.

Response

Thank you for this helpful comment. In the revised manuscript, we have clarified the mixed-mode data collection procedure as follows. Of the 230 questionnaires collected, 182 responses (79.1%) were obtained through on-site surveys and 48 responses (20.9%) were collected online. The same eligibility criteria, questionnaire, instructions, and self-administration procedure were applied to both survey modes. (p8, line number 349-366)

“This study surveyed Korean domestic tourists who had stayed for at least one night at a four- or five-star hotel or resort in Gangwon State within the previous year. Gangwon State was selected because it is one of South Korea’s major tourism and leisure destinations, with a high concentration of mountain, coastal, and recreational hotels and resorts. These facilities are primarily used for leisure travel, making the region an appropriate setting for examining hotel guests’ pro-environmental behavior. Data were collected from April 1 to April 17, 2026. Respondents were first screened to confirm that they had stayed at a four- or five-star hotel or resort in Gangwon State within the previous year. Those who did not meet these criteria were excluded. The questionnaire was administered in Korean, and self-administered in both the on-site and online surveys. The same quantitative questionnaire was administered through both online and on-site modes. Prior to com-pleting the questionnaire, respondents were given a brief explanation of pro-environmental behavior in the hotel context. Data collection was conducted by the Leisure Tech Research Institute using a mixed-mode survey approach. Of the 230 questionnaires collected, 182 responses (79.1%) were obtained through on-site surveys and 48 responses (20.9%) were collected online. The same eligibility criteria were applied to both survey modes. After excluding 26 responses with missing values or insufficient response consistency, 204 valid responses were retained for the final analysis.”

 

4.2. Notably, you did not discuss the possibility of common method bias; it should at least be acknowledged as a potential limitation of the study.

Response

Thank you for this important comment. In the revised manuscript, we have added a discussion of common method bias in Section 4.2. Validity, Reliability, and Common Method Bias (p11, 460-465)

“Harman’s single-factor test was conducted to assess potential common method bias. The unrotated exploratory factor analysis extracted multiple factors, and the first factor explained 37.001% of the total variance. Because this value was below the commonly used threshold of 50%, common method bias was not considered a dominant concern. Nev-ertheless, because all variables were collected through a cross-sectional self-reported survey, the possibility of common method bias cannot be completely excluded.”

4.3. It is important to mention that although regression analysis is acceptable for the proposed, relatively complex model involving mediation and moderation, the manuscript should acknowledge its limitations and avoid implying stronger causal conclusions than those supported by the analysis.

Response

Thank you for this important comment. In the revised manuscript, we have clarified that the regression coefficients, indirect effects, and interaction effects should be interpreted as statistical associations rather than definitive causal effects. We have also revised causal wording throughout the Results, Discussion, and Conclusion sections and expanded the limitations section to acknowledge the constraints of the cross-sectional design.

 

5. Results

5.1. The statistical analyses are clearly presented, and the tables are generally easy to interpret. The reported findings correspond to the proposed hypotheses. The manuscript concludes that implementation intention explains the intention– behavior gap. However, the gap is presented more strongly than the results indicate, because - the study demonstrates significant relationships among variables but does not directly test mediation.

Response

Thank you for this important comment. We agree that the original manuscript overstated the role of implementation intention because mediation was not directly tested. In the revised manuscript, we conducted a bootstrap mediation analysis using Hayes’ PROCESS Model 4. The indirect effects were significant, while the direct effects remained significant, indicating partial mediation. Accordingly, we now state that implementation intention partially mediates these relationships and helps explain, rather than fully explains, the intention–behavior gap.

Please see point 3.2. Data Collection and Analysis (p8, line number 377-381), and 4.4.4. Mediating Effect of Implementation Intention (p14, 15), 5. Discussion (p16, line number 624-635) for more details.

3.2. Data Collection and Analysis:

“To formally examine the indirect effects among the variables, mediation analysis was additionally conducted using Hayes’ PROCESS macro for SPSS. Indirect effects were es-timated using 5,000 bootstrap samples and 95% bootstrap confidence intervals. An in-direct effect was considered statistically significant when the confidence interval did not include zero.”

4.4.4. Mediating Effect of Implementation Intention

To examine the mediating role of implementation intention in the relationship between attitudes toward pro-environmental behavior and actual pro-environmental behavior, PROCESS Macro Model 4 was employed. The results of the mediation analysis are presented in Table 6. The findings indicated that attitude exerted a significant positive total effect (B = 0.363, p < 0.001) and a significant positive direct effect (B = 0.186, p = 0.012) on actual pro-environmental behavior. Furthermore, the indirect effect of attitude on actual pro-environmental behavior through implementation intention was statistically significant, as the 95% bootstrap confidence interval (LLCI = 0.100, ULCI = 0.273) did not include zero (Preacher & Hayes, 2004). These results indicate that implementation intention partially mediates the relationship between attitude and actual pro-environmental behavior. Therefore, Hypothesis 5 was supported.

Using the same procedure, the mediating role of implementation intention in the relationship between pro-environmental behavioral intention and actual pro-environmental behavior was also examined. The results of the mediation analysis are presented in Table 6. The findings revealed that behavioral intention had a significant positive total effect (B = 0.510, p < 0.001) and a significant positive direct effect (B = 0.330, p < 0.001) on actual pro-environmental behavior. In addition, the indirect effect of behavioral intention on actual pro-environmental behavior through implementation intention was found to be significant, as the 95% bootstrap confidence interval (LLCI = 0.072, ULCI = 0.299) excluded zero (Preacher & Hayes, 2004). These findings demonstrate that implementation intention partially mediates the relationship between pro-environmental behavioral intention and actual pro-environmental behavior. Accordingly, Hypothesis 6 was supported.

Given the cross-sectional design, these results represent statistical indirect associations and should not be interpreted as evidence of temporal or causal mediation.

Table 6. Results of Mediating Effect Analysis.

	B	SE	t	p	LLCI	ULCI
Total Effect
Attitude à Behavior	0.363	0.069	5.226	<0.001	0.226	0.500
Intention à Behavior	0.510	0.068	7.474	<0.001	0.375	0.645
Direct Effect
Attitude à Behavior	0.186	0.073	2.542	0.012	0.042	0.331
Intention à Behavior	0.330	0.087	3.780	<0.001	0.158	0.502
Indirect Effect
Attitude à Behavior	0.177	0.044	-	-	0.100	0.273
Intention à Behavior	0.180	0.058	-	-	0.072	0.299

 

5. Discussion

“First, hotel guests’ attitudes toward pro-environmental behavior were positively associated with both behavioral intention and implementation intention. Behavioral intention was also positively associated with implementation intention, and implementation intention was positively associated with pro-environmental behavior. Pro-environmental behavior was measured in this study as respondents’ self-reported behavior during their most recent hotel stay. The mediation analyses further showed significant indirect associations of attitude and behavioral intention with behavior through implementation intention. These findings are broadly consistent with previous studies highlighting the role of implementation intention in the relationship between behavioral intention and pro-environmental behavior (Grimmer & Miles, 2017; Wang et al., 2021; Wang & Mangmeechai, 2021). Overall, guests with more favorable attitudes tended to report stronger behavioral intentions and more specific implementation plans, and these variables were positively associated with higher levels of pro-environmental behavior during their most recent hotel stay.”

5.2. Similarly, the discussion of regression coefficients occasionally moves beyond statistical interpretation toward causal interpretation. Given the cross-sectional design, causal language should be used more cautiously.

Response

Thank you for this important comment. We agree that the cross-sectional design does not support definitive causal inference. In the revised manuscript, we have replaced causal expressions with more cautious association-based language throughout the Discussion, and Conclusions & Implications sections, and expanded the limitations section (from p17-20)

6. Discussion

6.1. The discussion appropriately relates most findings to previous research and highlights the practical importance of implementation intention. It is recommended that the discussion provide a deeper theoretical explanation of why environmental knowledge moderated one relationship and not the other. The current explanation remains relatively brief.

Response

Thank you for this helpful comment. In the revised manuscript, we have expanded the theoretical interpretation by explaining that environmental knowledge may function as an action-relevant cognitive resource that helps individuals translate favorable attitudes into concrete implementation plans. We have also clarified that these findings should be interpreted as relationship-specific moderating patterns rather than stage-specific effects, given the cross-sectional design.

5. Discussion (p17, line number 636 – 655)

“Second, environmental knowledge significantly moderated the relationship between attitude and implementation intention, whereas its moderating effect on the relationship between behavioral intention and implementation intention was not significant. Specifically, the positive association between attitude and implementation intention was stronger among respondents with higher levels of environmental knowledge. One possible explanation is that attitude reflects a general evaluation of pro-environmental behavior, but such a favorable evaluation may not by itself provide sufficient guidance for forming a concrete action plan. Environmental knowledge can serve as an action-relevant cognitive resource by helping individuals understand which environmental actions are appropriate and how they can be performed, thereby reducing uncertainty when translating favorable attitudes into implementation intentions. In contrast, behavioral intention represents a more proximal motivational readiness to act. Once individuals have already formed a relatively strong intention, they may possess sufficient motivational direction to develop implementation plans, leaving less additional moderating role for environmental knowledge.”

6.2. The non-significant moderating effect of situational context also deserves more critical reflection. Alternative explanations beyond implementation intention theory should be considered.

Response

Thank you for this helpful comment. In the revised Discussion, we have considered several possible explanations (p18, line number 656 – 670)

“Third, situational context did not significantly moderate the relationship between implementation intention and pro-environmental behavior. This finding is consistent with Grimmer and Miles (2017) and indicates that, in the present sample, the strength of this association did not vary significantly according to the measured situational conditions. One possible explanation is that the hotel behaviors examined, such as turning off lights, reusing towels, and reducing water consumption, are relatively easy to perform and require limited external resources or support. Once a specific implementation plan has been formed, such behaviors may therefore be less dependent on variations in situational conditions. Another possibility is that the relatively homogeneous hotel context of the sample provided insufficient variation in situational conditions to detect a moderating effect. Importantly, the non-significant interaction should not be interpreted as evidence that situational context is unimportant or that implementation intention is necessarily more influential than contextual factors. Rather, the role of situational context may depend on the type of behavior and the extent to which its performance requires external op-portunities, facilities, or resources.”

6.3. Although the manuscript presents practical implications for hotel managers, these recommendations remain relatively general. The discussion would be strengthened by linking the managerial implications more directly to the empirical findings. For example, it can be explained more specifically how hotels can translate the significant effects of implementation intention and environmental knowledge into concrete managerial practices aimed at encouraging guests' pro-environmental behavior.

Response

Thank you for this helpful comment. In the revised Section 6.2, we have strengthened the practical implications by linking each recommendation more directly to the empirical findings. In particular, we now provide more specific managerial practices for supporting implementation intentions, using action-relevant environmental information, and creating behavior-specific conditions that facilitate guests’ pro-environmental actions (p19, 20)

7. Conclusion

The conclusions are well organized and distinguish theoretical implications, practical implications, and study limitations. However, the theoretical implications occasionally overstate the contribution of the study. The findings mainly extend previous research within a specific context rather than establishing an entirely new theoretical framework. Similarly, the practical implications are relevant but could be linked more directly to the empirical findings rather than presented as general managerial recommendations.

Response

Thank you for this helpful comment. In the revised Section 6.1, we have moderated the theoretical claims and also revised Section 6.2 to link the practical implications more directly to the empirical findings, particularly those concerning implementation intention, environmental knowledge, and situational context.

8. General impression of the manuscript

The manuscript is generally well written, with clear academic language and a logical organization. The literature is current and includes many recent references. However, the review would benefit from greater critical synthesis rather than descriptive reporting. The methodological approach is acceptable for the Journal, although additional discussion regarding analytical limitations would strengthen the study. The statistical analyses are appropriate for the proposed hypotheses, but some conclusions should be expressed more cautiously given the cross-sectional design and analytical approach. Overall, the manuscript has clear practical relevance and presents an interesting application of implementation intention theory within hospitality research. Nevertheless, several theoretical and methodological issues should be addressed before publication.

Response

Thank you for your overall positive assessment of the manuscript and for your constructive comments. We have carefully revised the manuscript to strengthen the critical synthesis of the literature, clarify the analytical limitations, moderate causal and theoretical claims, and more directly link the practical implications to the empirical findings. Detailed responses to each specific comment are provided above.

 

 

We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s thoughtful and constructive comments. These suggestions have helped us clarify the theoretical rationale, strengthen the methodological rigor, and improve the overall presentation of the manuscript. We believe that the revisions have substantially improved the clarity and quality of the manuscript.

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript invokes TPB but uses only selected TPB elements. Attitude and behavioral intention are central, but other TPB constructs—especially subjective norms and perceived behavioral control—are not included or explicitly justified as omissions. Because the study claims to build on TPB, the authors should clarify whether the model is a partial TPB extension, a post-intentional implementation model, or an integrated TPB–implementation intention framework. Without this clarification, readers may question whether the model is theoretically coherent enough to support the stated contribution.

The title and abstract frame “implementation intention” as a mediating role through which attitude and behavioral intention translate into behavior.  However, the study does not contain any mediation analysis. There is an obvious mismatch between the title/conceptual claim and the analysis.

Authors mention that “Implementation intention is commonly expressed in an if–then format”. The measurement table shows that implementation intention items are not expressed in an if-then format.

Implementation intention and behavior items are highly parallel. Implementation intention includes plans to turn off lights/HVAC, reuse towels and linens, minimize disposable amenities, follow recycling guidelines, and reduce water consumption, while behavior uses corresponding past-behavior statements for the same actions. This close wording will inflate relationships between implementation intention and behavior because the constructs differ mainly by tense rather than by distinctive content.

The manuscript frequently refers to “actual behavior,” but the behavior measure appears to be self-reported past behavior rather than objective behavioral, which happened before intention in this study. Therefore, the results could not be used to explain the intention-behavior gap.

The authors made stage-based moderation argument for environmental knowledge. However, the research design is one-time survey study and findings are not stage-specific.

Sampling requires clearer justifications. Why are hotel and resort guests in Gangwon State suitable targets for a study of hotel guests’ pro-environmental behavior? How the on-site and online subsamples were recruited, what proportion came from each mode, whether quotas were used, what kinds of hotels or resorts were included, and whether respondents were domestic or international travelers. These details would strengthen transparency and allow readers to assess potential selection bias.

All key variables appear to be measured through the same self-reported survey at one time point. There should be a common-method-bias diagnostic in the methods/results sections.

The authors should conduct confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and report composite reliability, AVE, discriminant validity, and model fit indices. Given the close overlap between implementation intention and behavior, discriminant validity is especially important.

The authors should use SEM or at least a PROCESS-style bootstrapping approach to test the full model. SEM would allow simultaneous estimation of the measurement model and structural paths, correction for measurement error, and formal tests of indirect effects. If moderation is retained, the authors should report interaction coefficients, standard errors, t-values, confidence intervals, centering procedures, VIFs, etc. for interaction models, and simple-slope plots. The current moderation section reports changes in R² and significance of F-change, but not the interaction coefficients themselves.

Tables contain spelling errors such as “Attiude,” “Implementaion,” and “Predictores.”

Figure 1 appears small and low-resolution in the provided manuscript and should be redrawn for readability.

The authors should verify all references for relevance and accuracy. For example, the cited Khan et al. (2021) reference appears from its title to concern data sciences in digital marketing. Please check whether it is the correct source for the environmental-knowledge moderation claim.

Author Response

 

We sincerely thank the reviewer for the careful evaluation of our manuscript and for the thoughtful and constructive comments. We have carefully considered each comment and revised the manuscript accordingly. We believe that these suggestions have helped us clarify the theoretical arguments, strengthen the methodological presentation, and improve the overall quality of the manuscript. Our detailed responses to each comment are provided below.

 

 

1. The manuscript invokes TPB but uses only selected TPB elements. Attitude and behavioral intention are central, but other TPB constructs—especially subjective norms and perceived behavioral control—are not included or explicitly justified as omissions. Because the study claims to build on TPB, the authors should clarify whether the model is a partial TPB extension, a post-intentional implementation model, or an integrated TPB–implementation intention framework. Without this clarification, readers may question whether the model is theoretically coherent enough to support the stated contribution.

Response:

Thank you for this important comment. We agree that the original manuscript did not clearly distinguish the proposed framework from the full Theory of Planned Behavior. To address this concern, we revised the theoretical arguments in Section 3.1, Research Model, and the Theoretical Implications section.

3.1. Research model (p7, line number 317-332)

“This study examines the relationships underlying hotel guests’ pro-environmental behavior by drawing on selected constructs from the Theory of Planned Behavior and implementation intention theory, within the broader perspective of the intention–behavior gap. TPB provides the motivational starting point through attitude and be-havioral intention, whereas implementation intention theory explains how general in-tentions are developed into situation-specific action plans. The intention–behavior gap represents the research problem motivating the examination of the post-intentional process. Accordingly, this study examines whether attitude and behavioral intention are indirectly associated with pro-environmental behavior through imple-mentation intention. Given the cross-sectional design, the proposed relationships are interpreted as statistical associations rather than as a temporally ordered behavioral process. The study does not aim to test or extend the full TPB but selectively draws on attitude and behavioral intention as motivational antecedents. Subjective norms and perceived behavioral control were not included because the primary purpose was to examine implementation intention as a post-intentional self-regulatory mechanism. Thus, the proposed framework is positioned as a post-intentional implementation framework informed by selected TPB constructs.”

 

6.1. Theoretical Implications (p18, line number 688 -687)

“Thus, the study extends pro-environmental behavior research beyond an inten-tion-centered approach by highlighting the relevance of specific post-intentional action planning.”

 

2. The title and abstract frame “implementation intention” as a mediating role through which attitude and behavioral intention translate into behavior. However, the study does not contain any mediation analysis. There is an obvious mismatch between the title/conceptual claim and the analysis.

Response:

Thank you for this important comment. We agree that the original manuscript did not directly test the proposed mediating role of implementation intention. In the revised manuscript, we conducted a formal bootstrap mediation analysis using Hayes’ PROCESS Model 4. The results showed significant indirect associations of both attitude and behavioral intention with pro-environmental behavior through implementation intention. We have also revised the Abstract, Results, Discussion, and Conclusion to ensure that the mediation claims are consistent with the additional analysis and are interpreted cautiously given the cross-sectional design.

 

4.4.4. Mediating Effect of Implementation Intention (p14-15)

Results of Mediating Effect Analysis.

	B	SE	t	p	LLCI	ULCI
Total Effect
Attitude à Behavior	0.363	0.069	5.226	<0.001	0.226	0.500
Intention à Behavior	0.510	0.068	7.474	<0.001	0.375	0.645
Direct Effect
Attitude à Behavior	0.186	0.073	2.542	0.012	0.042	0.331
Intention à Behavior	0.330	0.087	3.780	<0.001	0.158	0.502
Indirect Effect
Attitude à Behavior	0.177	0.044	-	-	0.100	0.273
Intention à Behavior	0.180	0.058	-	-	0.072	0.299

 

 

3. Authors mention that “Implementation intention is commonly expressed in an if–then format”. The measurement table shows that implementation intention items are not expressed in an if-then format.

Implementation intention and behavior items are highly parallel. Implementation intention includes plans to turn off lights/HVAC, reuse towels and linens, minimize disposable amenities, follow recycling guidelines, and reduce water consumption, while behavior uses corresponding past-behavior statements for the same actions. This close wording will inflate relationships between implementation intention and behavior because the constructs differ mainly by tense rather than by distinctive content.

Response:

Thank you for this important observation. The survey was administered in Korean, and the original Korean implementation-intention items were formulated using conditional cue–response statements corresponding to an if–then structure. However, the English version previously presented in Table 1 was a shortened, content-focused translation prepared to fit the journal format. This abbreviated translation did not adequately preserve the conditional structure of the original items.

To address this issue, we have replaced the shortened items with more literal English translations that retain the original if–then structure. We have also revised the behavior items to clearly indicate that they refer to self-reported behavior during the respondent’s most recent hotel stay.

 

Original version (translated in English): Measurement items description

Implementation Intention	II1	If I am about to leave my hotel room, then I will check and switch off any unnecessary lighting and heating or cooling equipment.
	II2	If the towels or bed linens are still suitable for use, then I will request that they not be replaced.
	II3	If disposable amenities are available in the room, then I will use only those that are necessary.
	II4	If I need to dispose of waste during my stay, then I will first check the hotel’s recycling instructions and use the appropriate bin.
	II5	If I am using water in the bathroom, then I will avoid leaving it running when it is not needed.
Behavior	BH1	During my most recent hotel stay, I regularly checked whether lights or heating and cooling equipment had been left on unnecessarily.
	BH2	During my most recent hotel stay, I declined unnecessary replacement of towels or bed linens.
	BH3	During my most recent hotel stay, I avoided opening or using disposable amenities that I did not need.
	BH4	During my most recent hotel stay, I sorted recyclable waste whenever suitable disposal facilities were available.
	BH5	During my most recent hotel stay, I consciously avoided unnecessary water use while washing or showering.

 

After revision: Table 1. Measurement items description (shortened version) (p9,10)

Implementation Intention	II1	If I leave my room, I will switch off unnecessary lights and HVAC.
	II2	If towels or linens are still usable, I will request that they not be replaced.
	II3	If disposable amenities are provided, I will use only what is necessary.
	II4	If I dispose of waste, I will follow the hotel’s recycling instructions.
	II5	If I use water during my hotel stay, I will avoid unnecessary consumption.
Behavior	BH1	During my most recent stay, I switched off unnecessary lights and HVAC.
	BH2	During my most recent stay, I declined unnecessary towel or linen replacement.
	BH3	During my most recent stay, I avoided unnecessary disposable amenities.
	BH4	During my most recent stay, I sorted recyclable waste when possible.
	BH5	During my most recent stay, I avoided unnecessary water use.

 

4. The manuscript frequently refers to “actual behavior,” but the behavior measure appears to be self-reported past behavior rather than objective behavioral, which happened before intention in this study. Therefore, the results could not be used to explain the intention-behavior gap.

Response:

Thank you for this important comment.

To address this concern, we revised the theoretical discussion to more clearly distinguish behavioral intention, implementation intention, and behavior as bellow (p4, 151-167)

“Implementation intention is a self-regulatory construct that transforms a general behavioral intention into a specific action plan for a particular situation. Whereas behavioral intention refers to an individual’s overall willingness or motivational readiness to perform a behavior, implementation intention specifies when, where, and how that behavior will be carried out (Grimmer & Miles, 2017). It is commonly expressed in an if–then format, such as “If situation Y occurs, then I will perform behavior Z” (Wieber et al., 2015; Wang & Mangmeechai, 2021), although it may also take the form of a more detailed action plan depending on the nature and complexity of the behavior (Adam & Fayolle, 2016; Carrero et al., 2025). Implementation intention is conceptually distinct from behavior because it represents a future-oriented, situation-specific action plan, whereas behavior refers to the enactment of an action. In this sense, behavioral intention reflects the willingness to act, implementation intention reflects a situation-specific plan for action, and behavior reflects the enactment of that action. By linking a situational cue with a corresponding behavioral response in advance, implementation intention converts a general intention into a more concrete action plan and increases the likelihood that the planned response will be initiated when the relevant cue is encountered (Gollwitzer & Sheeran, 2006; Webb & Sheeran, 2007).”

 

Thank you for this important comment. We agree that the behavioral measure in this study reflects self-reported behavior rather than objectively observed behavior. In the revised manuscript, we retain “pro-environmental behavior” as the construct name, but we have clarified its conceptual meaning and measurement more explicitly. Specifically, Section 3.3, “Operational Definitions and Measurement of Variables,” now explains that pro-environmental behavior was operationalized as respondents’ self-reported behavior during their most recent hotel stay. We have also revised the Discussion and Section 6.1, “Theoretical Implications,” to consistently interpret the behavioral outcome as a self-reported measure and to avoid referring to it as “actual behavior.” In addition, the findings are discussed as statistical associations rather than as evidence of a temporally ordered or causal intention-to-behavior process.

 

3.3. Operational Definitions and Measurement of Variables (p9, line number 402-403)

“In this study, pro-environmental behavior was operationalized as respondents’ self-reported behavior during their most recent hotel stay.”

5. Discussion (p17, line number 625-626)

Pro-environmental behavior was measured in this study as respondents’ self-reported behavior during their most recent hotel stay.

6.1. Theoretical Implications (p18, 677-692)

In the present study, pro-environmental behavior was operationalized as respondents’ self-reported behavior during their most recent hotel stay.

 

 

5. The authors made stage-based moderation argument for environmental knowledge. However, the research design is one-time survey study and findings are not stage-specific.

Response:
Thank you for this important comment. We agree that the cross-sectional design does not allow us to identify temporally ordered stages of behavior formation. We have therefore removed the terms “stage-specific,” “early stage,” “stage-based perspective,” and “staged and dynamic process” from the Abstract, Discussion, and Theoretical Implications. The results are now described more cautiously as showing different moderating patterns across the relationships tested in the model.

 

6. Sampling requires clearer justifications. Why are hotel and resort guests in Gangwon State suitable targets for a study of hotel guests’ pro-environmental behavior? How the on-site and online subsamples were recruited, what proportion came from each mode, whether quotas were used, what kinds of hotels or resorts were included, and whether respondents were domestic or international travelers. These details would strengthen transparency and allow readers to assess potential selection bias.

Reponse:

Thank you for this important comment. We clarified the rationale for selecting Gangwon State, the types of accommodation facilities included, the proportion of on-site and online surveys, the respondent eligibility criteria… (p8, line number 349-366)

“This study surveyed Korean domestic tourists who had stayed for at least one night at a four- or five-star hotel or resort in Gangwon State within the previous year. Gangwon State was selected because it is one of South Korea’s major tourism and leisure destinations, with a high concentration of mountain, coastal, and recreational hotels and resorts. These facilities are primarily used for leisure travel, making the region an appropriate setting for examining hotel guests’ pro-environmental behavior. Data were collected from April 1 to April 17, 2026. Respondents were first screened to confirm that they had stayed at a four- or five-star hotel or resort in Gangwon State within the previous year. Those who did not meet these criteria were excluded. The questionnaire was administered in Korean, and self-administered in both the on-site and online surveys. The same quantitative questionnaire was administered through both online and on-site modes. Prior to com-pleting the questionnaire, respondents were given a brief explanation of pro-environmental behavior in the hotel context. Data collection was conducted by the Leisure Tech Research Institute using a mixed-mode survey approach. Of the 230 questionnaires collected, 182 responses (79.1%) were obtained through on-site surveys and 48 responses (20.9%) were collected online. The same eligibility criteria were applied to both survey modes. After excluding 26 responses with missing values or insufficient response consistency, 204 valid responses were retained for the final analysis.”

 

7. All key variables appear to be measured through the same self-reported survey at one time point. There should be a common-method-bias diagnostic in the methods/results sections.

Response:
Thank you for this important comment. Accordingly, common method bias was assessed using Harman’s single-factor test. In the revised manuscript, we have added the procedure for assessing common method bias in Section 3.2. Data Collection and Analysis (p7-8, line number 377-381), and reported the corresponding results in Section 4.2.Validity, Reliability, and Common Method Bias (p11, line number 460-465)

“3.2. Data Collection and Analysis

Because all major variables were measured from the same respondents using a self-reported questionnaire, Harman’s single-factor test was conducted to assess potential common method bias. All measurement items were entered into an unrotated exploratory factor analysis. Common method bias was considered potentially serious if a single factor emerged or if the first factor accounted for more than 50% of the total variance.

4.2.Validity, Reliability, and Common Method Bias

Harman’s single-factor test was conducted to assess potential common method bias. The unrotated exploratory factor analysis extracted multiple factors, and the first factor explained 37.001% of the total variance. Because this value was below the commonly used threshold of 50%, common method bias was not considered a dominant concern. Nev-ertheless, because all variables were collected through a cross-sectional self-reported survey, the possibility of common method bias cannot be completely excluded.”

 

8. The authors should conduct confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and report composite reliability, AVE, discriminant validity, and model fit indices. Given the close overlap between implementation intention and behavior, discriminant validity is especially important.

Response

Thank you for this valuable comment. The primary purpose of this study was to examine the relationships among attitude, behavioral intention, implementation intention, and pro-environmental behavior and to test the moderating effects of environmental knowledge and situational context. Accordingly, regression-based analyses were employed because they were directly aligned with the proposed hypotheses, and the study did not aim to estimate a full structural equation model.

Nevertheless, we agree that the conceptual distinction between implementation intention and behavior should be demonstrated more clearly. Therefore, we additionally calculated the average variance extracted (AVE) and assessed discriminant validity using the Fornell–Larcker criterion. The square root of the AVE for each construct was greater than its correlations with the other constructs, including the correlation between implementation intention and behavior. These results support the empirical distinctiveness of the constructs. The AVE values and discriminant validity results have been added to Table 4 and the corresponding discussion in Section 4.3(p12). The results indicate adequate discriminant validity among the constructs.

 

Table 4. Correlation and Discriminant Validity Analysis Results.

	AVE	1	2	3	4	5	6
Attitude	.801	.895
Behavioral intention	. 774	.471**	.880
Implementation intention	.723	.456**	.645**	.850
Pro-environmental  behavior	.777	.345**	.465**	.449**	.881
Environmental knowledge	. 716	.251**	.347**	431**	.308**	.846
Situational context	. 769	.095	.300**	.326**	.256**	.448**	.877

Note. AVE = average variance extracted. Bold diagonal values represent the square roots of the AVE. p < 0.01, two-tailed.

 

9. The authors should use SEM or at least a PROCESS-style bootstrapping approach to test the full model. SEM would allow simultaneous estimation of the measurement model and structural paths, correction for measurement error, and formal tests of indirect effects.

Response

Thank you for this important methodological comment. We agree that SEM is a useful approach for simultaneously estimating measurement and structural models. However, the primary purpose of this study was not to test a comprehensive latent-variable structural model, but to examine a series of specific relationships among attitude, behavioral intention, implementation intention, and pro-environmental behavior, together with the moderating effects of environmental knowledge and situational context. Accordingly, regression-based analysis was selected because it was directly aligned with the proposed hypotheses and enabled the incremental explanatory effects of the predictors and interaction terms to be examined.

To strengthen the formal assessment of the indirect effects, we additionally conducted mediation analysis using Hayes’ PROCESS macro for SPSS with bootstrap resampling (4.4.4. Mediating Effect of Implementation Intention, p14-15). The indirect effects were evaluated using bootstrap confidence intervals rather than relying solely on the significance of individual regression paths. An indirect effect was considered statistically significant when its bootstrap confidence interval did not include zero. The mediation analysis and its results have been added to the revised manuscript.

 

10. If moderation is retained, the authors should report interaction coefficients, standard errors, t-values, confidence intervals, centering procedures, VIFs, etc. for interaction models, and simple-slope plots. The current moderation section reports changes in R² and significance of F-change, but not the interaction coefficients themselves.

Response

 

Thank you for this important comment. In response, we revised Section 4.4.5 and Table 7 to provide more complete information for the moderation analyses. Specifically, we now report the interaction coefficients, standard errors, t-values, p-values, 95% confidence intervals, VIFs, R², ΔR², and F-change statistics for each model. We also clarified that the predictor and moderator variables were mean-centered before creating the interaction terms. The revised results show that the interaction between attitude and environmental knowledge was significant, supporting Hypothesis 7-1, whereas the interactions for Hypotheses 7-2 and 8 were not significant.

 

4.4.5. Moderating Effects of Environmental Knowledge and Situational Context

Hierarchical regression analysis was conducted to examine the moderating effects of environmental knowledge and situational context. For Hypothesis 7-1, the explanatory power of the model increased from 20.8% in Model 1 to 31.5% in Model 2 and 33.7% in Model 3. The interaction between attitude and environmental knowledge was statistically significant (B = 0.131, SE = 0.051, t = 2.563, p = 0.011, 95% CI [0.030, 0.232]), and the addition of the interaction term increased the explained variance by 2.2% (ΔR² = 0.022, ΔF = 6.568, p = 0.011). Thus, environmental knowledge significantly moderated the relationship between attitude and implementation intention, supporting Hypothesis 7-1.

For Hypothesis 7-2, the interaction between behavioral intention and environmental knowledge was not statistically significant (B = 0.064, SE = 0.046, t = 1.390, p = 0.166, 95% CI [−0.027, 0.154]). Although R² increased from 41.6% to 47.0% across the models, the additional variance explained by the interaction term was not significant (ΔR² = 0.005, ΔF = 1.932, p = 0.166). Therefore, Hypothesis 7-2 was not supported.

For Hypothesis 8, the interaction between implementation intention and situational context was also not statistically significant (B = 0.050, SE = 0.060, t = 0.827, p = 0.409, 95% CI [−0.069, 0.168]). The interaction term explained only an additional 0.3% of the variance (ΔR² = 0.003, ΔF = 0.684, p = 0.409). Thus, situational context did not significantly moderate the relationship between implementation intention and pro-environmental behavior, and Hypothesis 8 was not supported. Detailed results are presented in Table 7.

 

Table 7. Results of Moderating Effect Analysis

1. Moderating Effect of Environmental Knowledge on the Relationship between Attitude and Implementation Intention (H7-1)

Model	Predictor	B	SE	t	p	95% CI	VIF	R²	ΔR²	ΔF	p(ΔF)
1	Attitude	.416	.057	7.287	<.001	[.303, .528]	1.000	.208	.208	53.103	<.001
2	Attitude	.339	.055	6.162	<.001	[.230, .447]	1.067	.315	.107	31.277	<.001
	Environmental Knowledge	.382	.068	5.593	<.001	[.247, .516]	1.067
3	`Attitude	.342	.054	6.305	<.001	[.235, .449]	1.068	.337	.022	6.568	.011
	Environmental Knowledge	.412	.068	6.024	<.001	[.277, .546]	1.099
	Attitude × Environmental Knowledge	.131	.051	2.563	.011	[.030, .232]	1.035

 

1. Moderating Effect of Environmental Knowledge on the Relationship between Behavioral Intention and Implementation Intention (H7-2)

Model	Predictor	B	SE	t	p	95% CI	VIF	R²	ΔR²	ΔF	p(ΔF)
1	Behavioral Intention	.612	.051	11.996	<.001	[.512, .713]	1.000	.416	.416	143.912	<.001
2	Behavioral Intention	.535	.052	10.237	<.001	[.432, .638]	1.137	.465	.049	18.210	<.001
	Environmental Knowledge	.266	.062	4.267	<.001	[.143, .389]	1.137
3	Behavioral Intention	.530	.052	10.139	<.001	[.427, .633]	1.143	.470	.005	1.932	.166
	Environmental Knowledge	.288	.064	4.490	<.001	[.162, .415]	1.215
	Behavioral Intention × Environmental Knowledge	.064	.046	1.390	.166	[-.027, .154]	1.069

 

1. Moderating Effect of Situational Context on the Relationship between Implementation Intention and Pro-environmental Behavior (H8)

Model	Predictor	B	SE	t	p	95% CI	VIF	R²	ΔR²	ΔF	p(ΔF)
1	Implementation Intention	.518	.073	7.140	<.001	[.375, .661]	1.000	.201	.201	50.973	<.001
2	Implementation Intention	.472	.076	6.183	<.001	[.321, .622]	1.119	.215	.014	3.480	.064
	Situational Context	.144	.077	1.865	.064	[-.008, .297]	1.119
3	Implementation Intention	.463	.077	6.007	<.001	[.311, .615]	1.140	.218	.003	.684	.409
	Situational Context	.164	.081	2.023	.044	[.004, .323]	1.220
	Implementation Intention × Situational Context	.050	.060	.827	.409	[-.069, .168]	1.092

Note. Note. Predictors and moderators were mean-centered. B = unstandardized coefficient; SE = standard error; CI = confidence interval; VIF = variance inflation factor.

 

11. Tables contain spelling errors such as “Attiude,” “Implementaion,” and “Predictores.”

Response

Thank you for noting these errors. All tables have been carefully proofread, and spelling and formatting errors, including “Attiude,” “Implementaion,” and “Predictores,” have been corrected.

 

12. Figure 1 appears small and low-resolution in the provided manuscript and should be redrawn for readability.

Response

Figure 1 has been redrawn with larger text, clearer paths, and higher resolution to improve readability. The revised figure has been inserted in the manuscript in a publication-quality format.

 

13. The authors should verify all references for relevance and accuracy. For example, the cited Khan et al. (2021) reference appears from its title to concern data sciences in digital marketing. Please check whether it is the correct source for the environmental-knowledge moderation claim.

Response

Thank you for identifying this reference error. We verified that the cited Khan et al. (2021) article was unrelated to the environmental-knowledge moderation claim. The citation and the unsupported statement have therefore been removed. We have also rechecked the reference list for consistency between the cited claims and the corresponding sources.

 

 

We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s thoughtful and constructive comments. These suggestions have helped us clarify the theoretical rationale, strengthen the methodological rigor, and improve the overall presentation of the manuscript. We believe that the revisions have substantially improved the clarity and quality of the manuscript.

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

For me, the title seems too long and confusing. It is my suggestion that you revise it. The introduction and literature review identify the central research problem: the intention-behavior gap. This could be considered to be included in the title.
The introduction and literature review effectively contextualize the study. The literature review is adequate and presents a good relationship between the hypotheses and the literature review. The article adequately justifies the choice of the hospitality context, arguing that it represents a unique consumption environment where behavior may differ from everyday life, and gives studies that support this claim, such as Miao & Wei. The literature review is therefore complete, up-to-date, and perfectly aligned with the research objectives. 
Points 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, and 2.4 of the literature review end abruptly, without a conclusion and  directly links their discussion to the proposed hypotheses, although it does so implicitly.
Regarding the methodology, it is described clearly and in detail. The constructs are well defined, and their operationalization is clear. As a minor flaw, the only small aspect is the lack of explicit presentation of the research questions, but the model and hypotheses compensate for this. Concerning  the discussion, the authors demonstrate a critical ability to interpret the results in light of existing theory and the literature review.
In short, I consider the article to be of high methodological and theoretical quality. The literature review is complete, up-to-date, and well-integrated, clearly justifying the research model. Overall, the study makes a contribution to the literature on pro-environmental behavior in tourism, providing valuable insights.
In the methodology, the analysis in SPSS is well executed within traditional parameters, and the conclusions are logical and supported by the data. 

Author Response

 

We sincerely thank the reviewer for the careful evaluation of our manuscript and for the thoughtful and constructive comments. We have carefully considered each comment and revised the manuscript accordingly. We believe that these suggestions have helped us clarify the theoretical arguments, strengthen the methodological presentation, and improve the overall quality of the manuscript. Our detailed responses to each comment are provided below.

 

 

TITLE: Understanding the Formation of Hotel Guests’ Pro-Environmental Behavior: The Mediating Role of Implementation Intention and the Moderating Role of Environmental Knowledge

 

1. For me, the title seems too long and confusing. It is my suggestion that you revise it. The introduction and literature review identify the central research problem: the intention-behavior gap. This could be considered to be included in the title.

Response:

Thank you for this valuable suggestion. To improve clarity and conciseness, we have revised the title to highlight the intention–behavior gap. The revised title is as follows:

“Bridging the Intention–Behavior Gap in Hotel Guests’ Pro-Environmental Behavior”

 

2. The introduction and literature review effectively contextualize the study. The literature review is adequate and presents a good relationship between the hypotheses and the literature review. The article adequately justifies the choice of the hospitality context, arguing that it represents a unique consumption environment where behavior may differ from everyday life, and gives studies that support this claim, such as Miao & Wei. The literature review is therefore complete, up-to-date, and perfectly aligned with the research objectives. 

Response:

We sincerely appreciate your assessment.

 

3. Points 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, and 2.4 of the literature review end abruptly, without a conclusion and directly links their discussion to the proposed hypotheses, although it does so implicitly.

Response:

Thank you for this helpful comment. We agree that Sections 2.1–2.4 previously ended somewhat abruptly. In the revised manuscript, these sections focus on presenting the theoretical foundations and findings of prior studies, while their synthesis and direct linkage to the research model and hypotheses are provided in Section 3.1. Research Model (p7). This structure avoids repetition and provides a clearer transition from the literature review to the proposed model and hypotheses.

 

4. Regarding the methodology, it is described clearly and in detail. The constructs are well defined, and their operationalization is clear. As a minor flaw, the only small aspect is the lack of explicit presentation of the research questions, but the model and hypotheses compensate for this.

Response:

Thank you for this helpful observation. We agree that explicitly stated research questions can improve the transparency of the study and help readers better understand how the research model and hypotheses address the main research problem. Accordingly, we have clarified the research questions at the end of the Introduction (p2-3, line number 93-100)

 “Accordingly, the study addresses the following research questions: (1) How are attitude, behavioral intention, implementation intention, and pro-environmental behavior related among hotel guests? (2) Does implementation intention mediate the relationships between attitude and pro-environmental behavior and between behavioral intention and pro-environmental behavior? (3) Does environmental knowledge moderate the relationships of attitude and behavioral intention with implementation intention, and does situational context moderate the relationship between implementation intention and pro-environmental behavior?”

 

5. Concerning the discussion, the authors demonstrate a critical ability to interpret the results in light of existing theory and the literature review.

In short, I consider the article to be of high methodological and theoretical quality. The literature review is complete, up-to-date, and well-integrated, clearly justifying the research model. Overall, the study makes a contribution to the literature on pro-environmental behavior in tourism, providing valuable insights.

In the methodology, the analysis in SPSS is well executed within traditional parameters, and the conclusions are logical and supported by the data. 

Response:

We sincerely appreciate your assessment.

 

 

We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s thoughtful and constructive comments. These suggestions have helped us clarify the theoretical rationale, strengthen the methodological rigor, and improve the overall presentation of the manuscript. We believe that the revisions have substantially improved the clarity and quality of the manuscript.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear author(s),

the topic of the manuscript is interesting, however, some aspects should be improved.

Abstract: the abstact should present the main objective, methodology, main results, and implications. 

Methodology: please clarify how the respondents were selected. Is the sample representative for the tourists from the research area? Could you please clarify if common method bias was assessed? Was there any clarification for the participants in the survey on what ”pro-environment behavior” means?

At the same time it is not clear whether the respondents were international or national. In which language was the survey conducted? Was it self-administered?

The authors are encouraged to examine the internal consistency of their scales. Although a Cronbach's alpha above 0.90 indicates excellent reliability, it may also suggest item redundancy or an excessively long scale. 

Results: the regression results should be presented for all the models.

Author Response

 

We sincerely thank the reviewer for the careful evaluation of our manuscript and for the thoughtful and constructive comments. We have carefully considered each comment and revised the manuscript accordingly. We believe that these suggestions have helped us clarify the theoretical arguments, strengthen the methodological presentation, and improve the overall quality of the manuscript. Our detailed responses to each comment are provided below.

 

 

1. Abstract: the abstract should present the main objective, methodology, main results, and implications. 

Response:

Thank you for this helpful comment. We have revised the Abstract to present the four key components more explicitly.

“This study examines the relationships among hotel guests’ pro-environmental attitudes, behavioral intentions, implementation intentions, and pro-environmental behavior, while also investigating the moderating roles of environmental knowledge and situational context. Data were collected through a self-administered survey of 204 do-mestic Korean tourists who had stayed at hotels or resorts in Gangwon State, South Korea, and analyzed using SPSS 27, PROCESS Macro Model 4, and hierarchical regression analysis. The results showed that implementation intention was positively associated with pro-environmental behavior and partially mediated the relationships of attitude and behavioral intention with behavior. Environmental knowledge strength-ened the relationship between attitude and implementation intention but did not mod-erate the relationship between behavioral intention and implementation intention. Sit-uational context had no significant moderating effect. These findings identify imple-mentation intention as an important indirect mechanism associated with hotel guests’ pro-environmental behavior. Practically, hotels should provide situation-specific action prompts, clear recycling instructions, towel and linen reuse options, and accessible en-ergy- and water-saving facilities to facilitate guests’ pro-environmental practices.”

 

2. Methodology: please clarify how the respondents were selected. Is the sample representative for the tourists from the research area? Could you please clarify if common method bias was assessed? Was there any clarification for the participants in the survey on what ”pro-environment behavior” means?

At the same time it is not clear whether the respondents were international or national. In which language was the survey conducted? Was it self-administered?

Response:

Thank you for this valuable comment. We have revised Section 3.2 to clarify the sampling and survey procedures (p8, line number 349 – 366).

“This study surveyed Korean domestic tourists who had stayed for at least one night at a four- or five-star hotel or resort in Gangwon State within the previous year. Gangwon State was selected because it is one of South Korea’s major tourism and leisure destinations, with a high concentration of mountain, coastal, and recreational hotels and resorts. These facilities are primarily used for leisure travel, making the region an appropriate setting for examining hotel guests’ pro-environmental behavior. Data were collected from April 1 to April 17, 2026. Respondents were first screened to confirm that they had stayed at a four- or five-star hotel or resort in Gangwon State within the previous year. Those who did not meet these criteria were excluded. The questionnaire was administered in Korean, and self-administered in both the on-site and online surveys. The same quantitative questionnaire was administered through both online and on-site modes. Prior to com-pleting the questionnaire, respondents were given a brief explanation of pro-environmental behavior in the hotel context. Data collection was conducted by the Leisure Tech Research Institute using a mixed-mode survey approach. Of the 230 questionnaires collected, 182 responses (79.1%) were obtained through on-site surveys and 48 responses (20.9%) were collected online. The same eligibility criteria were applied to both survey modes. After excluding 26 responses with missing values or insufficient response consistency, 204 valid responses were retained for the final analysis.”

 

Common method bias was assessed using Harman’s single-factor test. In the revised manuscript, we have added the procedure for assessing common method bias in Section 3.2. Data Collection and Analysis (p8-9, line number 377-381), and reported the corresponding results in Section 4.2.Validity, Reliability, and Common Method Bias (p11, line number 460-465)

“3.2. Data Collection and Analysis

Because all major variables were measured from the same respondents using a self-reported questionnaire, Harman’s single-factor test was conducted to assess potential common method bias. All measurement items were entered into an unrotated exploratory factor analysis. Common method bias was considered potentially serious if a single factor emerged or if the first factor accounted for more than 50% of the total variance.

4.2.Validity, Reliability, and Common Method Bias

Harman’s single-factor test was conducted to assess potential common method bias. The unrotated exploratory factor analysis extracted multiple factors, and the first factor explained 37.001% of the total variance. Because this value was below the commonly used threshold of 50%, common method bias was not considered a dominant concern. Nev-ertheless, because all variables were collected through a cross-sectional self-reported survey, the possibility of common method bias cannot be completely excluded.”

 

3. The authors are encouraged to examine the internal consistency of their scales. Although a Cronbach's alpha above 0.90 indicates excellent reliability, it may also suggest item redundancy or an excessively long scale. 

Response:

Thank you for this important observation. In response, we conducted additional item-level reliability checks. This clarification has been added to Section 4.2 of the revised manuscript as below (p11, line number 456 – 459).

“The final Cronbach’s alpha coefficients ranged from 0.865 to 0.936. Because several coefficients exceeded 0.90, additional item-level reliability checks were conducted. The corrected item–total correlations ranged from 0.700 to 0.841, and deleting any retained item reduced the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of the corresponding scale.”

 

4. Results: the regression results should be presented for all the models.

Response

 Thank you for this helpful comment. We have revised Table 7 to present the regression results for all models. Specifically, the results for Models 1, 2, and 3 are now reported for each moderation analysis, including the regression coefficients, standard errors, t-values, p-values, confidence intervals, VIFs, R², ΔR², and F-change statistics.

 

4.4.5. Moderating Effects of Environmental Knowledge and Situational Context

Hierarchical regression analysis was conducted to examine the moderating effects of environmental knowledge and situational context. For Hypothesis 7-1, the explanatory power of the model increased from 20.8% in Model 1 to 31.5% in Model 2 and 33.7% in Model 3. The interaction between attitude and environmental knowledge was statistically significant (B = 0.131, SE = 0.051, t = 2.563, p = 0.011, 95% CI [0.030, 0.232]), and the addition of the interaction term increased the explained variance by 2.2% (ΔR² = 0.022, ΔF = 6.568, p = 0.011). Thus, environmental knowledge significantly moderated the relationship between attitude and implementation intention, supporting Hypothesis 7-1.

For Hypothesis 7-2, the interaction between behavioral intention and environmental knowledge was not statistically significant (B = 0.064, SE = 0.046, t = 1.390, p = 0.166, 95% CI [−0.027, 0.154]). Although R² increased from 41.6% to 47.0% across the models, the additional variance explained by the interaction term was not significant (ΔR² = 0.005, ΔF = 1.932, p = 0.166). Therefore, Hypothesis 7-2 was not supported.

For Hypothesis 8, the interaction between implementation intention and situational context was also not statistically significant (B = 0.050, SE = 0.060, t = 0.827, p = 0.409, 95% CI [−0.069, 0.168]). The interaction term explained only an additional 0.3% of the variance (ΔR² = 0.003, ΔF = 0.684, p = 0.409). Thus, situational context did not significantly moderate the relationship between implementation intention and pro-environmental behavior, and Hypothesis 8 was not supported. Detailed results are presented in Table 7.

 

Table 7. Results of Moderating Effect Analysis

1. Moderating Effect of Environmental Knowledge on the Relationship between Attitude and Implementation Intention (H7-1)

Model	Predictor	B	SE	t	p	95% CI	VIF	R²	ΔR²	ΔF	p(ΔF)
1	Attitude	.416	.057	7.287	<.001	[.303, .528]	1.000	.208	.208	53.103	<.001
2	Attitude	.339	.055	6.162	<.001	[.230, .447]	1.067	.315	.107	31.277	<.001
	Environmental Knowledge	.382	.068	5.593	<.001	[.247, .516]	1.067
3	Attitude	.342	.054	6.305	<.001	[.235, .449]	1.068	.337	.022	6.568	.011
	Environmental Knowledge	.412	.068	6.024	<.001	[.277, .546]	1.099
	Attitude × Environmental Knowledge	.131	.051	2.563	.011	[.030, .232]	1.035

1. Moderating Effect of Environmental Knowledge on the Relationship between Behavioral Intention and Implementation Intention (H7-2)

Model	Predictor	B	SE	t	p	95% CI	VIF	R²	ΔR²	ΔF	p(ΔF)
1	Behavioral Intention	.612	.051	11.996	<.001	[.512, .713]	1.000	.416	.416	143.912	<.001
2	Behavioral Intention	.535	.052	10.237	<.001	[.432, .638]	1.137	.465	.049	18.210	<.001
	Environmental Knowledge	.266	.062	4.267	<.001	[.143, .389]	1.137
3	Behavioral Intention	.530	.052	10.139	<.001	[.427, .633]	1.143	.470	.005	1.932	.166
	Environmental Knowledge	.288	.064	4.490	<.001	[.162, .415]	1.215
	Behavioral Intention × Environmental Knowledge	.064	.046	1.390	.166	[-.027, .154]	1.069

1. C. Moderating Effect of Situational Context on the Relationship between Implementation Intention and Pro-environmental Behavior (H8)

Model	Predictor	B	SE	t	p	95% CI	VIF	R²	ΔR²	ΔF	p(ΔF)
1	Implementation Intention	.518	.073	7.140	<.001	[.375, .661]	1.000	.201	.201	50.973	<.001
2	Implementation Intention	.472	.076	6.183	<.001	[.321, .622]	1.119	.215	.014	3.480	.064
	Situational Context	.144	.077	1.865	.064	[-.008, .297]	1.119
3	Implementation Intention	.463	.077	6.007	<.001	[.311, .615]	1.140	.218	.003	.684	.409
	Situational Context	.164	.081	2.023	.044	[.004, .323]	1.220
	Implementation Intention × Situational Context	.050	.060	.827	.409	[-.069, .168]	1.092

Note. Note. Predictors and moderators were mean-centered. B = unstandardized coefficient; SE = standard error; CI = confidence interval; VIF = variance inflation factor.

 

 

We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s thoughtful and constructive comments. These suggestions have helped us clarify the theoretical rationale, strengthen the methodological rigor, and improve the overall presentation of the manuscript. We believe that the revisions have substantially improved the clarity and quality of the manuscript.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors The paper is accepted for publication.

Author Response

We sincerely thank the reviewer for the positive evaluation of our revised manuscript and for the helpful suggestions provided during the review process. We greatly appreciate the reviewer’s time and constructive feedback. In addition, during our final review of the manuscript, we made several minor revisions to further improve the accuracy, consistency, and clarity of the manuscript. These minor revisions do not affect the main findings or conclusions of the study and were made solely to further improve the accuracy, consistency, and overall presentation of the manuscript. 

We again appreciate the reviewer’s valuable time and consideration.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thanks for taking my suggestions. The revised manuscript is fine with me.

Author Response

We sincerely thank the reviewer for the positive evaluation of our revised manuscript and for the helpful suggestions provided during the review process. We greatly appreciate the reviewer’s time and constructive feedback. In addition, during our final review of the manuscript, we made several minor revisions to further improve the accuracy, consistency, and clarity of the manuscript. These minor revisions do not affect the main findings or conclusions of the study and were made solely to further improve the accuracy, consistency, and overall presentation of the manuscript.

We again appreciate the reviewer’s valuable time and consideration.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear author(s),

Thank you for the improved version.

There is still room to improve the discussion section.

Good luck!

Author Response

 

We sincerely thank the reviewer for the positive feedback and for the additional suggestion regarding the Discussion section. In response, we revised point 5. Discussion to more clearly summarize the relationships among attitude, behavioral intention, implementation intention, and pro-environmental behavior, while providing a clearer explanation of the mediating role of implementation intention (p7, line number 620-642).

"First, hotel guests’ attitudes toward pro-environmental behavior were positively associated with both behavioral intention and implementation intention, while behavioral intention was also positively associated with implementation intention. Notably, behavioral intention showed a stronger association with implementation intention than attitude, suggesting that although favorable attitudes provide an important motivational foundation, a more proximal willingness to act may be more closely associated with the formation of specific situation-based plans. Furthermore, implementation intention was positively associated with pro-environmental behavior and accounted for significant indirect associations of both attitude and behavioral intention with behavior, highlighting its mediating role in the motivation-to-behavior process. Pro-environmental behavior was measured in this study as respondents’ self-reported behavior during their most recent hotel stay. In other words, favorable attitudes and a general willingness to act may be more strongly associated with pro-environmental behavior when accompanied by concrete, situation-specific implementation intentions. At the same time, the direct associations of attitude and behavioral intention with behavior remained statistically significant, indicating partial rather than complete statistical mediation. Thus, implementation intention should not be regarded as the sole mechanism connecting pro-environmental motivation with behavior, but rather as an important post-intentional mechanism through which general evaluations and behavioral willingness are indirectly associated with reported pro-environmental behavior. These findings are broadly consistent with previous studies highlighting the role of implementation intention as a post-intentional mechanism in research on the intention–behavior gap (Grimmer & Miles, 2017; Wang et al., 2021; Wang & Mangmeechai, 2021)."

In addition, during our final review of the manuscript, we made several minor revisions to further improve the accuracy, consistency, and clarity of the manuscript. These revisions do not alter the main findings or conclusions of the study but are intended to further enhance the overall quality and readability of the manuscript.

We again appreciate the reviewer’s valuable time and consideration.