Perception and Effectiveness of Environmental Education for Tourists under Spatial Perspective: A Case Study of Wuyi Mountain National Park
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Theoretical Model
2.1. Perception and Effectiveness of Environmental Education
2.1.1. Environmental Education Perception
2.1.2. Environmental Education Effectiveness
2.2. Influencing Factors
2.2.1. Education Mode
2.2.2. Spatial Element
2.3. Theoretical Model
3. Methodology
3.1. Study Area
3.2. Questionnaire Design
3.3. Data Collection
4. Data Results
4.1. Reliability and Validity Tests of Measurement Results
4.2. Descriptive Statistics of Sampling Data
4.3. Correlation Analysis
4.4. Influencing Factor Analysis
5. Discussion
- (1)
- Improvement of resource element interpretation system. The perception and effectiveness of environmental education are affected by the interpretation of resource element. Therefore, it is necessary to improve the connotation of resource element interpretation system in national parks. First of all, we need to sort out knowledge resources of environmental education in Wuyi Mountain National Park, focus on local knowledge, and systematically plan the environmental education knowledge system in Wuyi Mountain National Park. Secondly, we should improve the usability and convenience of resource element interpretation media to increase the depth of perception and effectiveness of environmental education.
- (2)
- Design of environmental education space combined with tourists’ preference. The planning and design of environmental education space should integrate the characteristics of national parks and tourists’ personality perception. As a key element to enhance perception and effectiveness, open space should be considered as the focus of environmental education space design. In addition, the natural texture of wood paved roads and the unique beauty of cobblestone paved roads provide visitors with pleasant environmental educational experience, creating a more organic connection between the natural landscape and educational element. By combining the spatial elements preferred by tourists, an environmental education space integrating perception, learning and interaction can be created to provide more pleasant and meaningful deep educational experience.
- (3)
- Customization of personalized environmental education program. According to the gender, age and education level of visitors, personalized education courses and spaces are customized to ensure that the environmental education space fully meets the needs of visitors and provides unique and meaningful educational experience. With the content of environmental education resources as the core, environmental education modes are determined according to the characteristics of different tourists, and experience routes are organized through various types of roads. For instance, patrol roads are connected with walking trails to form different educational trails, so as to better satisfy different audiences’ educational needs and provide more personalized and differentiated environmental education experiences.
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
Variable | Average Score | Item | Sample Distribution of Score/Piece | Mean | Standard Deviation | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |||||
Environmental education perception (GZ) | 3.46 | Ecosystem knowledge of national park (GZ1) | 19 (4.05%) | 64 (13.65%) | 173 (36.89%) | 137 (29.21%) | 76 (16.2%) | 3.4 | 1.04 |
Protected object knowledge of national park (GZ2) | 13 (2.77%) | 66 (14.07%) | 169 (36.03%) | 140 (29.85%) | 81 (17.27%) | 3.45 | 1.02 | ||
Humanistic culture knowledge of national park (GZ3) | 13 (2.77%) | 53 (11.3%) | 169 (36.03%) | 148 (31.56%) | 86 (18.34%) | 3.51 | 1.01 | ||
Conservation significance of national park (GZ4) | 16 (3.41%) | 45 (9.59%) | 139 (29.64%) | 170 (36.25%) | 99 (21.11%) | 3.62 | 1.03 | ||
Introduction to environmental issues (GZ5) | 20 (4.26%) | 53 (11.3%) | 197 (42%) | 131 (27.93%) | 68 (14.5%) | 3.37 | 1.00 | ||
Ecological protection laws and regulations (GZ6) | 21 (4.48%) | 59 (12.58%) | 182 (38.81%) | 137 (29.21%) | 70 (14.93%) | 3.38 | 1.03 | ||
Environmental protection behaviors (GZ7) | 13 (2.77%) | 50 (10.66%) | 160 (34.12%) | 169 (36.03%) | 77 (16.42%) | 3.53 | 0.98 | ||
Environmental protection skills (GZ8) | 22 (4.69%) | 59 (12.58%) | 167 (35.61%) | 149 (31.77%) | 72 (15.35%) | 3.41 | 1.04 | ||
Environmental education effectiveness-knowledge (XG-ZS) | 3.51 | Natural knowledge of national park (ZS1) | 13 (2.77%) | 28 (5.97%) | 191 (40.72%) | 181 (38.59%) | 56 (11.94%) | 3.51 | 0.88 |
Protected object knowledge of national park (ZS2) | 11 (2.35%) | 38 (8.1%) | 183 (39.02%) | 175 (37.31%) | 62 (13.22%) | 3.51 | 0.91 | ||
Humanistic culture knowledge of national park (ZS3) | 10 (2.13%) | 29 (6.18%) | 174 (37.1%) | 192 (40.94%) | 64 (13.65%) | 3.58 | 0.88 | ||
Basic concept of national park characteristics (ZS4) | 12 (2.56%) | 31 (6.61%) | 179 (38.17%) | 186 (39.66%) | 61 (13.01%) | 3.54 | 0.89 | ||
Environmental protection policies and regulations of national park (ZS5) | 13 (2.77%) | 39 (8.32%) | 205 (43.71%) | 157 (33.48%) | 55 (11.73%) | 3.43 | 0.90 | ||
Environmental education effectiveness-attitude (XG-TD) | 4.16 | Caring for the natural environment and ecosystem (TD1) | 5 (1.07%) | 5 (1.07%) | 100 (21.32%) | 170 (36.25%) | 189 (40.3%) | 4.14 | 0.86 |
Protecting wildlife and their habitats (TD2) | 5 (1.07%) | 3 (0.64%) | 107 (22.81%) | 155 (33.05%) | 199 (42.43%) | 4.15 | 0.87 | ||
Minimizing disturbance to wildlife during the tour (TD3) | 3 (0.64%) | 5 (1.07%) | 103 (21.96%) | 155 (33.05%) | 203 (43.28%) | 4.17 | 0.85 | ||
Not overdrawing the environmental resources of future generations to satisfy themselves (TD4) | 4 (0.85%) | 4 (0.85%) | 106 (22.6%) | 144 (30.7%) | 211 (44.99%) | 4.18 | 0.87 | ||
Environmental education effectiveness-awareness (XG-YS) | 3.71 | Helping other publics understand national parks (YS1) | 9 (1.92%) | 17 (3.62%) | 168 (35.82%) | 204 (43.5%) | 71 (15.14%) | 3.66 | 0.85 |
Having awareness of active learning for ecological knowledge(YS2) | 8 (1.71%) | 15 (3.2%) | 167 (35.61%) | 204 (43.5%) | 75 (15.99%) | 3.69 | 0.84 | ||
Having awareness of environmental concern (YS3) | 8 (1.71%) | 16 (3.41%) | 144 (30.7%) | 210 (44.78%) | 91 (19.4%) | 3.77 | 0.86 | ||
Environmental education effectiveness-behavior (XG-XW) | 4.17 | Throwing garbage into the trash or taking it away during the tour (XW1) | 8 (1.71%) | 8 (1.71%) | 94 (20.04%) | 101 (21.54%) | 258 (55.01%) | 4.26 | 0.64 |
Not feeding or scrambling wildlife during the tour(XW2) | 9 (1.92%) | 4 (0.85%) | 103 (21.96%) | 121 (25.8%) | 232 (49.47%) | 4.2 | 0.94 | ||
Following the designed route without disturbing wildlife habitats (XW3) | 5 (1.07%) | 7 (1.49%) | 97 (20.68%) | 118 (25.16%) | 242 (51.6%) | 4.25 | 0.91 | ||
Discouraging or reporting violations against protected objects (XW4) | 5 (1.07%) | 15 (3.2%) | 127 (27.08%) | 129 (27.51%) | 193 (41.15%) | 4.04 | 0.95 | ||
Actively participating in environmental protection and construction of national park (XW5) | 6 (1.28%) | 7 (1.49%) | 123 (26.23%) | 132 (28.14%) | 201 (42.86%) | 4.1 | 0.93 | ||
Environmental education effectiveness-skill (XG-JN) | 3.98 | Having a certain waste disposal ability (JN1) | 5 (1.07%) | 8 (1.71%) | 132 (28.14%) | 173 (36.89%) | 151 (32.2%) | 3.97 | 0.88 |
Having ability to observe protected objects and biodiversity (JN2) | 4 (0.85%) | 14 (2.99%) | 123 (26.23%) | 179 (38.17%) | 149 (31.77%) | 3.97 | 0.88 | ||
Having ability to select the least environmentally disturbing travel route (JN3) | 6 (1.28%) | 13 (2.77%) | 138 (29.42%) | 171 (36.46%) | 141 (30.06%) | 3.91 | 0.90 | ||
Having aesthetic ability to appreciate and comprehend ecological beauty (JN4) | 4 (0.85%) | 4 (0.85%) | 115 (24.52%) | 178 (37.95%) | 168 (35.82%) | 4.07 | 0.84 | ||
Education mode preference-guided mode (FD-XD) | 4.01 | Resource element interpretation (XD1) | 8 (1.71%) | 16 (3.41%) | 137 (29.21%) | 133 (28.36%) | 175 (37.31%) | 3.96 | 0.98 |
Participatory interactive experience (XD2) | 3 (0.64%) | 16 (3.41%) | 118 (25.16%) | 140 (29.85) | 192 (40.94%) | 4.07 | 0.92 | ||
Education mode preference-self-guided mode (FD-ZD) | 3.99 | Resource element interpretation (ZD1) | 3 (0.64%) | 12 (2.56%) | 157 (33.48%) | 131 (27.93%) | 166 (35.39%) | 3.95 | 0.92 |
Participatory interactive experience (ZD2) | 4 (0.85%) | 8 (1.71%) | 130 (27.72%) | 156 (33.26%) | 171 (36.46%) | 4.03 | 0.89 | ||
Spatial element preference (YS) | 3.89 | Open space (YS1) | 6 (1.28%) | 8 (1.71%) | 117 (24.95%) | 195 (41.58%) | 143 (30.49%) | 3.98 | 0.86 |
Semi-closed understory space (YS2) | 5 (1.07%) | 8 (1.71%) | 130 (27.72%) | 191 (40.72%) | 135 (28.78%) | 3.95 | 0.85 | ||
Artificial paved roads without interpretive facilities (YS3) | 15 (3.2%) | 29 (6.18%) | 162 (34.54%) | 156 (33.26%) | 107 (22.81%) | 3.66 | 1.00 | ||
Artificial paved roads with interpretive facilities (YS4) | 11 (2.35%) | 22 (4.69%) | 139 (29.64%) | 176 (37.53%) | 121 (25.8%) | 3.80 | 0.96 | ||
Artificial paved roads with interactive facilities (YS5) | 4 (0.85%) | 7 (1.49%) | 130 (27.72%) | 190 (40.51%) | 138 (29.42%) | 3.96 | 0.84 | ||
Natural roads without interpretive facilities (YS6) | 5 (1.07%) | 20 (4.26%) | 141 (30.06%) | 186 (39.66%) | 117 (24.95%) | 3.83 | 0.89 | ||
Natural roads with interpretive facilities (YS7) | 5 (1.07%) | 10 (2.13%) | 132 (28.14%) | 189 (40.3%) | 133 (28.36%) | 3.93 | 0.86 | ||
Natural roads with interactive facilities (YS8) | 4 (0.85%) | 4 (0.85%) | 119 (25.37%) | 157 (33.48%) | 185 (39.45%) | 4.10 | 0.87 | ||
Wood paved road (YS9) | 3 (0.64%) | 11 (2.35%) | 127 (27.08%) | 200 (42.64%) | 128 (27.29%) | 3.94 | 0.83 | ||
Rock block paved road (YS10) | 4 (0.85%) | 12 (2.56%) | 132 (28.14%) | 191 (40.72%) | 130 (27.72%) | 3.92 | 0.86 | ||
Rock paved road (YS11) | 8 (1.71%) | 25 (5.33%) | 141 (30.06%) | 169 (36.03%) | 126 (26.87%) | 3.81 | 0.95 | ||
Characteristically paved road (YS12) | 4 (0.85%) | 3 (0.64%) | 125 (26.65%) | 207 (44.14%) | 130 (27.72%) | 3.97 | 0.80 | ||
Cobblestone paved road (YS13) | 6 (1.28%) | 11 (2.35%) | 143 (30.49%) | 172 (36.67%) | 137 (29.21%) | 3.90 | 0.89 |
References
- Mocior, E.; Kruse, M. Educational values and services of ecosystems and landscapes–An overview. Ecol. Indic. 2016, 60, 137–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhong, L.; Yang, R.; Zhao, Z. Critical Review of English Literature for National Parks Based on Bibliometric Analysis. Chin. Landsc. Archit. 2018, 34, 23–28. [Google Scholar]
- Dong, R.; Sun, X.; Han, L.; WANG, C.; Wang, C.; Zhang, Y.; Ma, H.; Liu, W.; Li, S.; Yu, T.; et al. The discussion on facilitating the value realization methods of ecological products based on the landsenses ecology. Acta Ecol. Sin. 2023, 43, 7660–7669. [Google Scholar]
- Lugg, A.; Slattery, D. Use of national parks for outdoor environmental education: An Australian case study. J. Adventure Educ. Outdoor Learn. 2003, 3, 77–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Toffolo, M.M.; Simoncini, G.A.; Marchini, C.; Meschini, M.; Caroselli, E.; Franzellitti, S.; Prada, F.; Goffredo, S. Long-Term Effects of an Informal Education Program on Tourist Environmental Perception. Front. Mar. Sci. 2022, 9, 830085. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, G.; Innes, J.L.; Wu, S.W.; Krzyzanowski, J.; Yin, Y.; Dai, S.; Zhang, X.; Liu, S. National Park Development in China: Conservation or Commercialization. Ambio 2011, 41, 247–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Oleśniewicz, P.; Pytel, S.; Markiewicz-Patkowska, J.; Szromek, A.R.; Jandová, S. A model of the sustainable management of the natural environment in national parks—A case study of national parks in Poland. Sustainability 2020, 12, 2704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Johns, R.A.; Pontes, R. Parks, rhetoric and environmental education: Challenges and opportunities for enhancing ecoliteracy. J. Outdoor Environ. Educ. 2019, 22, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Harrison, S. ‘Why are we here’? Taking ‘place’ into account in UK outdoor environmental education. J. Adventure Educ. Outdoor Learn. 2010, 10, 3–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jose, S.; Patrick, P.G.; Moseley, C. Experiential learning theory: The importance of outdoor classrooms in environmental education. Int. J. Sci. Educ. Part B 2017, 7, 269–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hosseini, S.; Oladi, J.; Amirnejad, H. The evaluation of environmental, economic and social services of national parks. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2021, 23, 9052–9075. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gould, R.K.; Coleman, K.; Gluck, S.B. Exploring dynamism of cultural ecosystems services through a review of environmental education research. Ambio 2018, 47, 869–883. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hutcheson, W.; Hoagland, P.; Jin, D. Valuing environmental education as a cultural ecosystem service at Hudson River Park. Ecosyst. Serv. 2018, 31, 387–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cook, G. The Planning, Design, and Delivery of Environmental Education and Interpretation in Ecotourism: A Case Study of Tiritiri Matangi Island. Master’s Thesis, Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand, 2024. [Google Scholar]
- Svartor, J.E. Interpretation and environmental education associated with national park visitor centres: Framework, development and design. Master’s Thesis, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Ås, Norway, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Dou, Y.; Wu, C.; He, Y. Public concern and awareness of National Parks in China: Evidence from social media big data and questionnaire data. Sustainability 2023, 15, 2653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Golledge, R.G. Spatial Behavior: A Geographic Perspective; Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 1997. [Google Scholar]
- Ji, R.; Li, S.; Shao, Y. A Study on the Characteristics of Children’s Natural Activities in the Neighborhood and Their Influencing Factors: Evidence from Hangzhou, China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 16087. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shen, J.; Cui, J.; Li, M.; Clarke, C.V.; Gao, Y.; An, R. Green space and physical activity in China: A systematic review. Sustainability 2021, 13, 13368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, D.; Wei, D. Spatial behavior research: Persperctive and technical paradigm. City Plan. Rev. 2023, 47, 4–11. [Google Scholar]
- Gillett, M. The Tbilisi declaration. McGill J. Educ./Rev. Des Sci. L’éduc. McGill 1977, 12, 243–245. [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, H.; Huang, Z.; Fang, Y.; Tu, W.; Wang, K. Tourist environmental education in wetland reserves: A case study of the Red-crowned cranes and David’s deer National Reserves in Yancheng, China. Acta Ecol. Sin. 2015, 35, 7899–7911. [Google Scholar]
- Matsiori, S.K. Application of the New Environmental Paradigm to Greece: A critical case study. Econ. Anal. Policy 2020, 66, 335–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ardoin, N.M.; Bowers, A.W.; Gaillard, E. Environmental education outcomes for conservation: A systematic review. Biol. Conserv. 2020, 241, 108224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zorrilla-Pujana, J.; Rossi, S. Environmental education indicators system for protected areas management. Ecol. Indic. 2016, 67, 146–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huang, C.; Li, R.; Fan, Y. Influencing Factor for the Effect of Environmental Education in Ecotourism of Coastal Wetland in Jiangsu Province—Evidence from the National Yancheng Rare Birds Nature Reserve, Jiangsu Province, China. J. Cent. South Univ. For. Technol. (Soc. Sci.) 2015, 9, 70–77. [Google Scholar]
- Dale, R.G.; Powell, R.B.; Stern, M.J.; Garst, B.A. Influence of the natural setting on environmental education outcomes. Environ. Educ. Res. 2020, 26, 613–631. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Janeczko, E.; Wojtan, R.; Korcz, N.; Woźnicka, M. Interpretative signs as a tool supporting informal environmental education on the example of Warsaw’s urban forests. Forests 2021, 12, 1091. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, W.; Ao, Q.; Pei, L.; Le, J. The Four “Pros” of Tourist Education Behavioral Objectives in National Parks. Nat. Prot. Areas 2023, 3, 71–81. [Google Scholar]
- Meng, L.; Pan, Z.; Zhu, W. Characteristics and enlightenment of environmental education system in National Parks of the United States. World Reg. Stud. 2023, 32, 51–62. [Google Scholar]
- Zeller, J.; Doyle, R.; Snodgrass, K. Accessibility Guidebook for Outdoor Recreation and Trails; USDA Forest Service, Technology and Development Program: Washington, DC, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Ulrich, R.S.; Simons, R.F.; Losito, B.D.; Fiorito, E.; Miles, M.A.; Zelson, M. Stress recovery during exposure to natural and urban environments. J. Environ. Psychol. 1991, 11, 201–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Luo, F.; Luo, Y.; Li, X.; He, J.; Qu, P. Relationship model building among space, information and media in forest tourism commentary planning:a case sudy of tianjiling national forest park. J. Cent. South Univ. For. Technol. 2019, 39, 128–134. [Google Scholar]
- Stern, M.J.; Powell, R.B.; Hill, D. Environmental education program evaluation in the new millennium: What do we measure and what have we learned? Environ. Educ. Res. 2014, 20, 581–611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gajić, T.; Minasyan, L.A.; Petrović, M.D.; Bakhtin, V.A.; Kaneeva, A.V.; Wiegel, N.L. Travelers’(in) Resilience to environmental risks emphasized in the media and their redirecting to medical destinations: Enhancing sustainability. Sustainability 2023, 15, 15297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Petrović, M.D.; Milovanović, I.; Gajić, T.; Kholina, V.N.; Vujičić, M.; Blešić, I.; Đoković, F.; Radovanović, M.M.; Ćurčić, N.B.; Rahmat, A.F. The Degree of Environmental Risk and Attractiveness as a Criterion for Visiting a Tourist Destination. Sustainability 2023, 15, 14215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Education Mode | Specific Item |
---|---|
Guided mode | Guided interpretation of resource elements, such as guide’s interpretation |
Participatory interactive experiences, such as nature games | |
Self-guided mode | Self-guided interpretation of resource elements, such as single natural objects, thematic knowledge points, etc. |
Participatory interactive experiences, such as interactively experiencing outfit: observing telescope, etc. |
Cronbach α | Number of Items | Sample Size | KMO | Barth Spherical Value | df Value | p Value | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Environmental education perception scale | 0.959 | 8 | 469 | 0.931 | 4093.056 | 28 | 0 |
Environmental education effectivenes scale | 0.965 | 21 | 469 | 0.946 | 11,888.3 | 210 | |
Educational mode preference scale | 0.857 | 4 | 469 | 0.775 | 887.915 | 6 | |
Spatial element preference scale | 0.943 | 13 | 469 | 0.949 | 4494.024 | 78 |
Environmental Education Perception | Environmental Education Effectiveness | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
B | SE | t | p | B | SE | t | p | |
Educational mode preference constant | 1.785 | 0.205 | 8.703 | 0.000 ** | 2.271 | 0.165 | 13.728 | 0.000 ** |
XD1 | 0.159 | 0.061 | 2.617 | 0.009 ** | 0.086 | 0.049 | 1.757 | 0.08 |
XD2 | 0.025 | 0.062 | 0.395 | 0.693 | 0.113 | 0.05 | 2.253 | 0.025 * |
ZD1 | 0.211 | 0.057 | 3.743 | 0.000 ** | 0.148 | 0.046 | 3.253 | 0.001 ** |
ZD2 | 0.027 | 0.067 | 0.404 | 0.687 | 0.112 | 0.054 | 2.085 | 0.038 * |
R2 | 0.144 | 0.218 | ||||||
Adjusting R2 | 0.136 | 0.212 | ||||||
F | F (4,464) = 19.470, p = 0.000 | F (4,464) = 32.402, p = 0.000 | ||||||
D-W value | 1.608 | 1.85 | ||||||
Spatial element preference constant | 0.935 | 0.207 | 4.509 | 0.000 ** | 1.671 | 0.165 | 10.105 | 0.000 ** |
YS1 | 0.222 | 0.063 | 3.515 | 0.000 ** | 0.214 | 0.05 | 4.251 | 0.000 ** |
YS2 | −0.058 | 0.069 | −0.845 | 0.399 | 0.024 | 0.055 | 0.441 | 0.66 |
YS3 | 0.041 | 0.056 | 0.728 | 0.467 | −0.177 | 0.045 | −3.972 | 0.000 ** |
YS4 | 0.095 | 0.063 | 1.507 | 0.132 | 0.037 | 0.05 | 0.736 | 0.462 |
YS5 | −0.02 | 0.078 | −0.261 | 0.794 | 0.149 | 0.062 | 2.391 | 0.017 * |
YS6 | 0.085 | 0.07 | 1.21 | 0.227 | −0.031 | 0.056 | −0.558 | 0.577 |
YS7 | 0.004 | 0.069 | 0.063 | 0.95 | −0.031 | 0.055 | −0.56 | 0.576 |
YS8 | 0.038 | 0.073 | 0.516 | 0.606 | 0.155 | 0.058 | 2.653 | 0.008 ** |
YS9 | 0.008 | 0.082 | 0.092 | 0.926 | 0.118 | 0.065 | 1.805 | 0.072 |
YS10 | −0.028 | 0.066 | −0.422 | 0.673 | −0.023 | 0.053 | −0.427 | 0.669 |
YS11 | 0.072 | 0.074 | 0.98 | 0.328 | 0.1 | 0.059 | 1.697 | 0.09 |
YS12 | 0.189 | 0.062 | 3.037 | 0.003 ** | 0.069 | 0.05 | 1.395 | 0.164 |
R2 | 0.279 | 0.357 | ||||||
Adjusting R2 | 0.26 | 0.34 | ||||||
F | F (12,456) = 14.711, p = 0.000 | F (12,456) = 21.072, p = 0.000 | ||||||
D-W value | 1.673 | 1.927 |
Dependent Variable | Gender | Age | Education |
---|---|---|---|
Environmental education spatial element preference | 0.17 | 0.79 | 0.64 |
Environmental education mode preference | 0.001 ** | 0.037 * | 0.004 ** |
Environmental education perception | 0.98 | 0.31 | 0.56 |
Environmental education effectiveness | 0.001 ** | 0.37 | 0.000 ** |
Demographic Characteristics | Variable | Education Mode | Environmental Education Effectiveness | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
XD1 | XD2 | ZD1 | ZD2 | Mean | ZS | TD | YS | XW | JN | Mean | ||
Gender | Male | 3.85 | 3.90 | 3.91 | 3.93 | 3.89 | 3.52 | 4.04 | 3.68 | 4.06 | 3.91 | 3.84 |
Female | 4.10 | 4.28 | 4.00 | 4.15 | 4.13 | 3.50 | 4.31 | 3.74 | 4.31 | 4.08 | 3.99 | |
Education | Middle school and below | 3.50 | 3.57 | 3.79 | 3.71 | 3.64 | 3.06 | 3.41 | 3.17 | 3.34 | 3.20 | 3.23 |
High school | 3.56 | 3.80 | 3.68 | 3.88 | 3.73 | 3.58 | 3.83 | 3.65 | 3.94 | 3.81 | 3.76 | |
University and junior college | 3.95 | 4.03 | 4.01 | 4.02 | 4.00 | 3.55 | 4.18 | 3.75 | 4.18 | 4.05 | 3.94 | |
Postgraduate and above | 4.24 | 4.42 | 3.78 | 4.17 | 4.15 | 3.42 | 4.30 | 3.61 | 4.35 | 3.85 | 3.91 | |
Age | 18 years old below | 3.68 | 4.04 | 3.76 | 3.88 | 3.84 | ||||||
19–29 years old | 3.94 | 4.01 | 3.97 | 4.02 | 3.98 | |||||||
30–39 years old | 4.12 | 4.44 | 3.76 | 4.10 | 4.10 | |||||||
40–49 years old | 4.07 | 4.20 | 4.13 | 4.00 | 4.10 | |||||||
50–59 years old | 4.43 | 4.36 | 4.14 | 4.21 | 4.29 | |||||||
60 years old above | 4.33 | 4.33 | 4.33 | 4.33 | 4.33 |
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. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Chi, M.; Lin, C.; Liu, J.; Liao, L.; Lan, S. Perception and Effectiveness of Environmental Education for Tourists under Spatial Perspective: A Case Study of Wuyi Mountain National Park. Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 5902. https://doi.org/10.3390/app14135902
Chi M, Lin C, Liu J, Liao L, Lan S. Perception and Effectiveness of Environmental Education for Tourists under Spatial Perspective: A Case Study of Wuyi Mountain National Park. Applied Sciences. 2024; 14(13):5902. https://doi.org/10.3390/app14135902
Chicago/Turabian StyleChi, Mengwei, Cuize Lin, Jiayi Liu, Lingyun Liao, and Siren Lan. 2024. "Perception and Effectiveness of Environmental Education for Tourists under Spatial Perspective: A Case Study of Wuyi Mountain National Park" Applied Sciences 14, no. 13: 5902. https://doi.org/10.3390/app14135902
APA StyleChi, M., Lin, C., Liu, J., Liao, L., & Lan, S. (2024). Perception and Effectiveness of Environmental Education for Tourists under Spatial Perspective: A Case Study of Wuyi Mountain National Park. Applied Sciences, 14(13), 5902. https://doi.org/10.3390/app14135902