Next Article in Journal
Influence of Sieve Surface Attitude on Sieving Performance of Granular Materials with Non-Uniform Feeding Conditions
Next Article in Special Issue
Evaluation of the European Green Deal Policy in the Context of Agricultural Support Payments in Latvia
Previous Article in Journal
Reproductive Biology Factors Hampering Lemon [Citrus limon (L.) Burm. f.] Genetic Improvement
Previous Article in Special Issue
Does the Agricultural Productive Service Embedded Affect Farmers’ Family Economic Welfare Enhancement? An Empirical Analysis in Black Soil Region in China
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Agriculture
Volume 12
Issue 12
10.3390/agriculture12122022
agriculture-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

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

Influence of Attachment Theory on Pro-Environmental Behavior and Well-Being: A Case of Organic Agricultural Tourism in Taiwan Hualien and Taitung

by
Ching-Cheng Shen
1,
Dan Wang
1,*,
Jennifer Pasion Loverio
2,
Hsi-Lin Liu
1 and
Hsing-Yi Wang
1
1
Graduate Institute of Tourism Management, National Kaohsiung University of Hospitality and Tourism, No. 1, Songhe Rd., Xiaogang Dist., Kaohsiung City 812301, Taiwan
2
Department of Hotel, Restaurant and Institution Management, College of Home Economics, University of the Philippines-Diliman, Quezon City 1101, Philippines
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agriculture 2022, 12(12), 2022; https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture12122022
Submission received: 19 October 2022 / Revised: 22 November 2022 / Accepted: 22 November 2022 / Published: 26 November 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Agricultural Local Development, Social Anthropology, and Economic Activities)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Organic agricultural tourism is an environment-friendly tourism that has emerged in recent years. However, no comprehensive dependency theory discusses the tourists’ pro-environmental behavior and well-being from the perspective of the public sphere. This research aims to verify the effect of the four dimensions of attachment and its impact on pro-environmental behavior. This research substantiated that the four aspects of attachment theory had a positive and significant influence on pro-environmental behavior and well-being. Furthermore, place and activity attachment had the highest impact. The results serve as a basis for understanding and motivating tourists’ pro-environmental behaviors and assist them in achieving well-being through organic agriculture tourism. This research also suggests sustainable development practices for destination operators or managers.

1. Introduction

The “2030 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)” emphasize that climate and environmental changes significantly affect the earth, which is one of humankind’s most critical challenges that needs attention [1,2]. Tourism is highly dependent on the environmental and climatic conditions of the destination. The ecological degradation caused by tourism has also led to the decline of many tourism destinations [3,4]. The tourism industry and environmental issues are complementary to each other.
Organic agricultural tourism is an eco-friendly and sustainable form of tourism developed in recent years. Through it, visitors can learn more about agricultural areas, products, food, cultural elements, and the local traditional communities [5,6]. To meet the challenges of rural development and the market demand of tourists for rural areas, developing rural alternative goods and services to increase economic benefits, such as organic agriculture, natural agriculture, environmental protection, and tourism, is necessary [7]. Compared with general tourism activities, it is essential to promote the landscape resources of organic agricultural tourism [8]. In addition, agricultural tourism can increase income through products and activities, thus bringing additional cash flow and profitability to agriculture [9,10,11]. Therefore, agricultural tourism is an effective measure of rural development and a source of tourism income [12,13,14]. Traditional agriculture is no longer the main or only economic driver of rural development, and tourism has been recognized as an effective catalyst for the rural environment and economic revitalization [7,15].
Taiwan began to promote organic agriculture and organic farming in 1996. The total area of organic farmland increased from 159.6 hectares in 1996 to 11,765 hectares in 2022 [16]. The combination of organic agriculture and rural tourism has led to the dynamic development of organic agricultural tourism, which has become a good place for urban dwellers to take vacations and connect with the environment. For residents of modern cities, ecotourism is not only a tribute to fashion but also a natural choice for leisure [15]. However, organic agriculture is less common than mass tourism [15]. Ibáñez-Rueda et al. [17] pointed out that pro-environmental behavior is an intermediary variable between natural connection and well-being; there is currently no research on pro-environmental behavior in organic agricultural tourism. Therefore, this research takes the Hualien and Taitung areas in Taiwan as examples to explore tourists’ pro-environmental behavior in organic agricultural tourism.
Based on tourists’ environmentally responsible behavior, effective ways to promote the sustainable development of destinations have become a common focus topic in current tourism practices and academia [18,19,20]. The change in individual consumption behavior (such as environment-friendly behavior, purchase, and the consumption of products) is an essential prerequisite for the sustainable development of environmental regions [21,22]. In particular, tourism is a multi-dimensional industry that interacts with the environment. The environmental knowledge gained by tourists from their travel experience can positively affect and shape people’s attitudes and behaviors toward sustainable environmental development [23]. If tourists’ consumption behavior is irresponsible or unfriendly to the environment, they are essential triggers that harm the environment [19]. Weaver and Lawton [24] believed in the symbiotic relationship between responsible tourists’ behavior and the sustainability of the destination. Thus, tourists’ pro-environmental behavior could be regarded as an advocacy for environmental protection. As Steg and Vlek [25] mentioned, tourists’ consumption behavior affects the climate and environment because tourists’ behavior is the primary source of environmental problems. In addition, high-quality environmental and climatic conditions can also bring people a more comfortable living environment [26]. When tourists think that the behavior beneficial to the environment or nature is meaningful [27], they receive satisfaction from this behavior and good feelings, thus positively affecting their subjective well-being [28]. From a moral point of view, well-being should not be obtained through selfish behavior. If consumption activities can promote the protection of the natural environment, it may affect their well-being [29]. In other words, environment-friendly behaviors will increase the well-being of tourists by improving the environmental conditions of people’s lives [30]. Therefore, one of the objectives of this research is to find out how pro-environmental behavior during organic agricultural tourism affects the well-being of tourists.
Attachment theory is widely used in leisure tourism-related research, and it denotes a particular emotion people have toward things, which makes people like, rely on, and identify with things [31]. Previous studies have found that place attachment relates to environmental protection behavior for two reasons: 1. Emotional bonds make tourists feel empathy and sympathy for the destination. 2. During the performance process, tourists witness the degradation of the environment caused by tourism. Between these two points, tourists have the desire (attitude, behavior) to voluntarily protect these destinations [32]. However, the research on attachment theory related to pro-environment behavior usually stops at a place or emotional attachment [33,34,35]. Hou et al. [36] conceptualized destination attachment as a relationship structure composed of tourists’ cognition and emotional connection to destination development. The object of attachment can be based on a place’s social or physical elements [37]; it is not limited to place attachment. Under the influence of the epidemic, tourism demand has shifted to more meaningful tourism activities [38,39]. Tourists can deeply understand the environmental resources, values, and environmental protection behaviors through tourism activities [40]. Thus, environmental attachment is inseparable from protecting the environment [40,41]. Organic agricultural products can enhance tourists’ awareness of the importance of environmental resources [42] and bring inner well-being [43] through product attachment. According to the above analysis, the attachment theory includes the following four types in this research: place attachment, activity product attachment, environmental attachment, and product attachment.
Most studies have focused on the discussion of place attachment [44,45,46,47]. However, only a few have established a comprehensive attachment framework. The effects of attachment theory on pro-environmental behaviors from different antecedent variables also still need to be explored. Therefore, this research aims to establish a comprehensive theoretical framework of attachment and explore which attachment has the most significant effect on pro-environmental behavior. This is to reduce the academic gap on related theories. In addition, the results can make destination managers and operators more aware of tourists’ pro-environmental behavior. This will promote organic agriculture tourism’s sustainable development and maximize tourists’ well-being. Based on the above discussion, the research objectives are as follows:
  • To determine the effect of place attachment, product attachment, environmental attachment, and activity attachment of organic agriculture on tourists’ pro-environment behavior.
  • To investigate the effect of pro-environment behaviors of organic agriculture on tourists’ well-being.

2. Literature Review

2.1. The Relationship between Attachment and Pro-Environmental Behavior

Place attachment is an essential indicator of environmental management [48] and protection behavior [37,49,50,51]. It is the cognitive and emotional bond between people and places [47,48] and can predict people’s behavior toward the environment [32,52]. This attachment stems from people’s interaction with a place and society [47]. Therefore, place attachment in this research refers to the emotional bond generated by tourists’ interaction and cognition with the locals in organic agricultural tourism.
Dang and Maurer [53] showed that the higher the place attachment is, the higher the pro-environmental behavior. This emotional bond helps to understand the attitude and behavior of tourists after traveling to a specific place and the residents’ response to environmental changes. Park et al. [54] believed that tourism groups often establish solid emotional ties with scenic spots to meet their internal needs to have a positive attitude and behavior toward a destination/place. Increasing the chance of contact with nature will enhance the individual’s attachment to the place and improve pro-environmental behavior [55,56]. The higher degree of place attachment, the more inclined to maintain the existing environmental attitude, and the higher the individual’s intention for environmental protection [57,58]. Environmental psychologists use place attachment to predict and evaluate pro-environment behavior [47,49,50,59]. This is because individuals are willing to protect places that are meaningful to them [60]. This research posits that tourists’ attachment to a place can lead to a sense of responsibility for the local environment. Therefore, the following hypothesis was proposed:
H1a: 
Place attachment has a significant positive impact on pro-environmental behavior.
According to the regulations on the management of organic agricultural products in Chapter IV of the Organic Agriculture Promotion Law published by the Council of Agriculture, Executive Yuan in 2018 only agricultural products approved by a qualified “verification agency” from the initial production to subsequent processing, packaging, and circulation processes comply with government regulations can be labeled as Taiwan-certified organic agricultural products. Attachment is a particular emotion that makes people like, rely on, and identify with things [18]. Thus, this research defines product attachment as the emotional bond between tourists and organic agricultural products.
Customers feel attached to a particular product and commit to continue buying the product [61] such as the purchase of products with environmental labels, eating organic fruits, and interest in recycling activities [62]. When people feel connected to a green product, they may continue to purchase and consume it [63]. Organic agricultural products can meet the needs of the public to pay attention to food safety and pursue health and wellness, thus making tourists identify and rely on organic agricultural products [31]. In addition, when consumers gain environmental knowledge and understand which products or production processes pollute the environment, they are more likely to develop positive environmental attitudes and buy environmentally friendly products [42]. Therefore, this study put forward the hypothesis:
H1b: 
Product attachment has a significant positive impact on pro-environmental behavior.
Creating meaningful spaces for tourists and increasing tourists’ participation in local environmental activities forms an environmental attachment [64]. One of its essential functions is to make people understand the primary value of the natural world. When people appreciate the environment, it shows environmental awareness and inspiration for exploration, gratitude, compassion, and guilt [3]. Tourists’ environmental attachment to natural places contributes to their emotional and psychological recovery [49]. Therefore, this research defines environment attachment as the emotional connection to the environment generated by tourists in an organic agricultural atmosphere.
Contact with nature can encourage the behavior of protecting the environment [65,66]. These behaviors help reduce the harm tourists bring to the environment [67]. Travelers’ environmental attitudes strongly affect their willingness to participate in environmental tourism [68]. Meanwhile, environmental awareness encourages them to show environmentally responsible behavior, and improving environmental awareness will positively affect tourists’ pro-environmental behavior [69]. Ahmad et al. [3] showed that environmental awareness, attention, and attachment positively and significantly affect tourists’ pro-environmental behavior. The more individuals participate in activities involving the natural environment, the more they pay attention to environmental protection. This connection with nature leads to a higher level of well-being [70]. Thus, this research proposes the following hypothesis:
H1c: 
Environmental attachment has a significant positive impact on pro-environmental behavior.
An activity site in a specific space and environment that provides services to people. The activity location and explicit content constitute the activity place and behavior [71]. The motivation of the activity might be the environmental awareness and behavior generated by taking biology or place as the center [72]. Therefore, activity attachment is defined as the protection awareness of the biological or agricultural environment generated by tourists in the interactive activities of the organic agricultural environment.
Exposure to nature, natural leisure, and outdoor activities affects pro-environmental behavior; the more tourists appreciate the natural environment and spend more time on natural leisure activities, the more it encourages pro-environmental behavior [73]. Therefore, the more people understand and participate in environmental issues, the more they can encourage people to engage in pro-environment actions [74]. Accordingly, this research proposed the hypothesis is:
H1d: 
Activity attachment has a significant positive impact on pro-environmental behavior.

2.2. The Relationship between Pro-Environmental Behavior and Well-Being

Environmental behavior is considered beneficial to improve the environmental quality of a destination and promote the sustainable development of the natural environment and cultural resources [75]. Pro-environmental behavior is similar to pro-social behavior toward others [76], positively affecting individual well-being [77]. Pro-environmental behaviors are divided into the public sphere (individuals voluntarily participating in environmental protection or actively solving environmental problems) and the private sphere (individuals’ environmental behaviors closely related to daily life for their interests). However, previous studies have discussed environmental protection and well-being from the perspective of the private sphere [78,79,80]. Pro-environmental behavior is a broad range of environmentally conscious behaviors that individuals voluntarily undertake to reduce and minimize environmental damage by tourists [81]. From the perspective of the public sphere, this research explores which aspects of tourists’ attachments affect pro-environmental behaviors and the effect of pro-environmental behaviors on well-being. Therefore, pro-environmental behavior is defined in this research as the behavior of tourists who voluntarily participate in the protection of organic agriculture, actively solve environmental problems, and are willing to purchase and use organic agricultural products.
Well-being is a person’s self-evaluation of whether they are living a better life. It is a person’s subjective evaluation of life’s emotions, satisfaction, and cognition. Meseroll [82] emphasized that well-being should be based on morality, not selfishness. Therefore, if consumption activities can promote the protection of the natural environment, it will affect their well-being [29,83]. Based on the above, this study defines well-being as the better life experience and inner satisfaction tourists experience by engaging in pro-environmental behaviors toward organic agriculture.
Experiencing a sustainable way of life is pleasant in itself, and pro-environmental behaviors will increase well-being by improving the environmental conditions in which people live [30]. Deterioration of the local environment can lead to a feeling of a loss of a part of oneself and a threat to one’s well-being [84,85]. Davis et al. [86] pointed out that people’s well-being from the natural environment will strengthen their participation in environmental protection behavior. People’s involvement in maintaining the place’s quality will help improve the quality of life and well-being [57,87]. The above discussion shows that tourists’ pro-environmental behavior can give them a feeling of well-being. Therefore, this research puts forward the last hypothesis:
H2: 
Pro-environmental behavior has a significant positive impact on well-being.

3. Research Methodology

3.1. Research Site

The site of this study was Huatung, Taiwan. The area is landlocked by mountains with fertile soil and clean air, ideal for organic agricultural cultivation. It produces high-quality agricultural products, which are then supplied to the market. Organic agriculture reduces the impact of agricultural production on environmental pollution and promotes the sustainable operation of ecologically diversified agriculture. In addition, it helps conserve Taiwan’s water and soil resources and biodiversity sustainability, as well as maintain food safety and public health [88]. The area of organic agriculture in the Huatung area was as high as 5219 hectares as of August 110, accounting for 31% of the total area of organic agriculture in Taiwan [16].

3.2. Measurement Development

This research utilized the survey method as the primary data collection tool. The survey questionnaire included four parts: attachment, pro-environmental behavior, well-being, and demographic variables. First, attachment is the recognition and dependence of tourists on places, products, environments, and activities related to tourism destinations. It is based on four dimensions: place attachment (PLA), product attachment (PDA), environment attachment (EVA), and activity attachment (ACA). Second, well-being (WB) is a kind of satisfaction, positive emotion, and self-realization of life needs. It is measured by subjective well-being and positive feeling, including satisfaction with well-being needs, self-realization, life satisfaction, pleasure, physical and mental health, interpersonal relationships, and living environment satisfaction. Third, pro-environmental behavior (PEB) is tourists loving the environment. Tourists actively participating in organic agriculture tourism activities, are willing to share ideas and practices of organic agriculture environmental protection, and play a more active role in environmental protection.
The respondents include those who like organic tourism and product experience activities, prefer to buy organic agricultural products, want to participate in the rural life experience of organic agricultural tourism, and are willing to share organic agricultural and environmental protection ideas with others. A seven-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 = extremely disagree to 7 = extremely agree, was used to measure the tourists’ perception. Fourth, the demographic variables included gender, marriage, age, education, occupation, residence, and income.

3.3. Data Collection

This research used convenience sampling method to select the respondents. The respondents were tourists who visited the organic agritourism areas in Taiwan’s Huatung areas. The questionnaire was created through the SurveyCake platform and distributed to respondents of different social groups with other functions and ages. Questionnaires were also distributed to the tourism community in Huatung using Facebook and Line. Each link could only be answered once by the participants. Since respondents may have different work and rest habits, the questionnaires were distributed at different times.
Because of the COVID-19 pandemic, the researchers could not collect face-to-face data. To overcome this barrier, the online questionnaire was more rigorous and standardized. Before filling out the questionnaire, the respondents were screened using two criteria: 1. The respondent must be 20 years old. 2. They must have visited the research site within the last 2 years. In total, 479 questionnaires were distributed from 1 January 2021 to 30 August 2021, and 438 valid questionnaires were received.

3.4. Analysis Tool

This research utilized SPSS 21.0 to understand the basic situation of tourists through descriptive statistics. The Linear Structure Relationship Model (LISREL) was used to verify the constructed linear structure model and the impact relationship between the variables.

4. Statistical Results

4.1. Demographic Statistics

The demographic characteristics of respondents showed that there were more male participants (51.8%) than females (48.2%). Most participants were between 32 and 41 years of age (47.0%), followed by 42–51 years of age (35.2%). There were also more married participants (59.1%) than unmarried (37.4%). Most participants had a university degree (68.5%), followed by high school (14.6%). The average monthly income of the participants was above TWD 65,000 (USD 2311) at 27.4%, followed by TWD 25,000–35,000 (USD 888–1243) at 24.4%. Most participants worked in the service industry (28.8%), followed by the business industry (20.1%). In terms of their place of residence, the majority lived in the southern region (79.2%), followed by those living in the northern region (13.2%). Table 1 shows the detailed demographic profiles of the participants.

4.2. Descriptive Statistics

The results of the descriptive analysis are shown in Appendix A. The average place attachment ranged from 4.85 to 5.58, with “I agree with the development of organic agricultural tourism” having the highest mean score. The average product attachment ranged from 4.95 to 5.45, with “Compared with other agricultural products, organic agricultural products attract me more” having the highest mean score. The average environment attachment ranged from 5.39 to 5.68, with “The experience of organic agricultural tourism makes me better understand the significance of environmental protection” having the highest mean score. The activity attachment ranged from 5.23 to 5.57, with “Organic agriculture tourism experience activities bring me good memories” having the highest mean score. The well-being ranged from 5.45 to 5.67, with “I am interested in daily activities” having the highest mean score. The pro-environmental behavior ranged from 5.26 to 5.55, with “I am willing to protect the organic agricultural environment more actively” having the highest mean score.

4.3. Structural Model

In this research, the independent variables were place attachment (PLA), product attachment (PDA), environmental attachment (EVA), and activity attachment (ACA); the dependent variables were pro-environmental behavior (PEB) and well-being (WB). LISREL verified the constructed linear structure model and the impact relations between the variables of the proposed research hypotheses. Figure 1 shows the path coefficient of the structural model.
The error variation was positive for the primary goodness-of-fit index of this research model. The coefficient ranged from 0.71 to 0.98, and Cronbach’s α ranged from 0.910 to 0.948. The composite reliability (CR) ranged from 0.890 to 0.959, which surpasses the recommended 0.7 [89]. Meanwhile, the average variance extracted (AVE) ranged from 0.669 to 0.886 (exceeding 0.5), indicating good convergent validity. These results showed that the reliability and validity of each dimension were acceptable (Table 2).
Concerning the goodness-of-fit index of the model, the chi-square statistic (χ2) was 744.32 (df = 300), while the chi-square ratio (χ2/df) was 2.48. The goodness-of-fit index (GFI) was 0.82, and the adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI) was 0.76. The root means a square error of approximation (RMSEA) was 0.077, the mean square residual (RMR) was 0.055, the normalized fit index (NFI) was 0.97, the non-normalized fit index (NNFI) was 0.98, and the comparative fit index (CFI) was 0.98. All indices mentioned above were within an acceptable range, which indicates that the overall goodness-of-fit of the model was good [90] and shows that the model fitted well with the data.
Table 3 shows the square root values of AVE most were greater than the normalized correlation coefficients among the variables, which means that the scale had high discriminant validity. Based on the analysis, the verification of the research hypothesis is presented in Table 4. The hypotheses were all accepted (p < 0.050).

5. Discussion and Suggestions

5.1. Discussion

This research verified the theoretical framework of attachment theory in different aspects of pro-environmental behavior and pro-environmental behavior on well-being. Table 2 reveals the path coefficients of each item in its dimension. The critical factors of PLA were PLA4 (0.91) and PLA1 (0.89), which represent the emotional bond generated by tourists’ interaction and cognition with the village atmosphere of organic agriculture. The critical factors of PDA were PDA3 (0.95) and PDA1 (0.94), which shows that tourists like, rely on, and identify with organic agricultural products and thus have an emotional connection with them. Meanwhile, the critical factor of EVA was EVA2 (0.98), which means that tourists have a better understanding of the meaning of environmental protection through the experience of organic agricultural tourism, thereby generating awareness of the protection and reflection of the local environment. The critical factors of ACA were ACA4 (0.96), ACA2 (0.95), and ACA5 (0.95), which shows that the attractiveness of organic farming environmental activities and bringing good memories to tourists can increase the interaction between tourists and the environment, thereby deepening the intimacy of tourists’ experience. Finally, the critical factors of PEB were EB3 (0.90) and PEB1 (0.87), which reveals that visitors voluntarily participate in the conservation of organic agriculture, address environmental concerns, and are actively involved in the environmental protection experience. The above path analysis explains the main influencing factors of tourists’ pro-environmental and life satisfaction and well-being. These results also reveal how tourists affect pro-environmental behavior and well-being through their experience of attachment to organic agriculture.
According to the path coefficients of the structural model (Figure 1), this research finds that PLA (0.38) and ACA (0.36) are the principal structural paths that affect the environment. The tourists’ feelings and emotional connection to the organic agricultural environment are the main factors that influence whether they are willing to participate in environmental protection activities. The local activity experience is the source of feeling the importance and value of the environment. PDA (0.22) also has an important impact on environment-friendly behaviors. Certified organic agricultural products are also emotional bonds between tourists and environment-friendly behaviors. EVA (0.16) is an influential factor that must be addressed. When appreciating the environment, understanding of the fundamental values of the environment can also trigger the tourists’ environmental awareness of exploration, gratitude, sympathy, and guilt. Finally, tourists voluntarily solve and participate in the protection of organic agriculture and are willing to purchase and use organic agricultural products for interaction and emotional connection. These activities provide a better life experience and produces a sense of satisfaction.

5.2. Implications

5.2.1. Theoretical Implications

This research enhances the attachment theory with four different factors and determines which factors affect tourists’ pro-environmental behaviors. It also explains the enhanced well-being of tourists traveling to organic agritourism from a public perspective. The study not only complements the application of attachment theory in tourism but also explains the impact of organic agriculture on tourists’ pro-environmental behavior from a public perspective and well-being.
Moreover, the result demonstrates that place attachment, product attachment, environmental attachment, and activity attachment significantly and positively affect pro-environmental behavior. Drivers from different perspectives were put into the pro-environmental behavior and well-being to build a comprehensive attachment theory and verify that this theoretical framework is established. Through analysis, this research confirms the model to be stable. As such, this study introduces a new theoretical framework for future researchers and augments the literature and theoretical basis for organic agricultural tourism. This is a breakthrough in the academic field.

5.2.2. Industrial Implications

Place attachment is the main factor affecting pro-environmental behavior, and this is similar to previous findings [33,34,37]. Among them, the more profound emotion for organic agriculture accounts for the most significant proportion [32]. That is, it should not only stay in the landscape setting and improvement of infrastructure but should attract tourists from the emotional side, such as nostalgic experience and design. Nostalgia becomes an emotional experience that allows people to relive or recall deep memories from the past [91]. It is important to attract tourists with an appealing activity design, endow environmental protection with educational significance, and guide or publicize the concept of paying attention to the environment.
Individuals with deep environmental concerns are more likely to show pro-environmental behavior. Consequently, the ecological situation is necessary for pro-environmental conduct [3]. Organic agricultural products should combine “production, life, and ecology;” let customers understand the complete ecological chain; strengthen tourists’ understanding of the relationship between products and the environment; and increase the dependence of products on pro-environmental behavior [42]. Therefore, that the link between products and the environment should be emphasized when guiding scenic spots.
“Organic tourism experience activities” also play the most critical role in increasing tourists’ pro-environmental behaviors [64]. This research suggests that the organic agricultural environment should not only cover planting and agriculture but also involve ecological and biological breeding. Diverse animal and plant experiences and interactive activities allow tourists to connect with the environment and protect themselves [72]. For example, tourists may adopt some plants and animals and learn to care for them. Another way is to design an activity competition where the winner can adopt and take care of animals or plants. These activities remind tourists to be pro-environment by making substantive items through activities that tourists can take back as memories and remembrances [73,74]; for example, tourists can use environmentally friendly materials to make DIY products, which can be brought back as souvenirs.
The impact of environmental and product attachment on the pro-environment is also not to be underestimated. Suppose tourists have the opportunity to participate in the cultivation of organic agriculture, with explanations of agricultural products. In that case, they will better understand the value of organic agriculture on the environment and the concept of this production and cultivation mode [3]. Similarly, organic agricultural products can be displayed and explained, or tourists can participate in production, processing, and repackaging [92]. These activities will increase tourists’ liking, cognition, and dependence on organic agricultural products.

5.3. Limitations and Future Research

First, although this research integrates the four attachment theories of place, products, environment, and activities and verifies their impact on pro-environmental behavior and well-being, it ignores the effect of cultural attachment on tourist behavior. This research suggests that future studies can explore the impact of pro-environmental behavior on sustainable development from the perspective of cultural connotation. Second, this study had fewer participants since only tourists who have visited organic agricultural tourism in the Huatung areas were eligible to participate. In contrast, in the case of mass tourism, there can be many participants. Future research can explore mass tourism according to the framework developed by this study. Third, the primary purpose of this research was to verify the effect of the four variables. However, the study did not explore whether there are differences between ages or gender. Thus, it is suggested that future researchers can make a differential analysis of the demographic variables among different ethnic participants. Finally, this study focused on organic agricultural tourism in Taiwan; the behavioral characteristics of the participants may differ from other regions due to different cultural backgrounds. Hence, it is suggested that future researchers pay more attention to cross-cultural research.

6. Conclusions

One of the outstanding contributions of this study is to supplement the research gap of attachment theory on environmentally friendly behavior. This study verified the positive and significant impact of attachment on pro-environmental behavior and well-being from four aspects through quantitative research methods. The results can serve as a basis for understanding and motivating tourists’ pro-environmental behaviors and assist them in achieving well-being through organic agriculture tourism. Therefore, creating and verifying the establishment of a new theoretical framework is undoubtedly a great academic contribution to the relevant fields. In addition, this article supplements the relevant literature on organic agricultural tourism. Further, through academic research, it reveals to relevant managers which factors have the most significant impact on agricultural and environmental protection and what effect this pro-environmental behavior has on tourists’ well-being. Finally, this research responds to the SDGs’ call to bring industrial development recommendations to managers or operators of organic agritourism through academic research.
This study found that in addition to place attachment, activity and product attachment significantly affect environment-friendly behavior, which not only supplements the gap of previous research in academia but also brings some inspiration to practice. As previously mentioned, organic agricultural tourism supplements the income of organic farmers and promotes environmental education to tourists. Therefore, destination managers and marketers should attract tourists through event planning and the promotion of organic agricultural products. These activities will further stimulate the tourist’s protective feeling toward the environment and enhance their pro-environment behavior during travel.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, C.-C.S.; Data curation, formal analysis, writing of original draft, D.W.; Reviewing and editing, J.P.L.; supervision, H.-L.L.; resources, D.W. and H.-Y.W. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A. Descriptive Statistics

ConstructCodingItemsMeanSDReferences
PLAPAT1I like traveling to the organic agriculture village very much.5.211.225[31]
PAT2I will think of organic agriculture tourism first.4.851.257
PAT3I agree with the development of organic agricultural tourism.5.581.165
PAT4Compared with other tourism, I have deeper feelings for organic agricultural villages.5.161.338
PDAPDA1I like organic agricultural products very much.5.431.163[31]
PDA2Compared with other agricultural products, organic agricultural products are of special significance to us.5.321.201
PDA3Compared with other agricultural products, organic agricultural products attract me more.5.451.146
PDA4I often buy organic agricultural products.4.951.410
EVAEVA1Because of my experience in organic agriculture tourism, I have increased my recognition of environmental protection.5.641.096[31]
EVA2The experience of organic agricultural tourism makes me better understand the significance of environmental protection.5.681.111
EVA3For the sustainable development of the environment, I like to travel more to organic agriculture.5.391.176
ACAACA1I like the organic agriculture tourism experience very much.5.331.163[31]
ACA2Organic agriculture tourism experience activities bring me good memories.5.571.107
ACA3Organic agriculture tourism experience activities attract me more than other tourism experience activities.5.231.273
ACA4The organic agriculture tourism experience is very interesting for me.5.461.245
ACA5The experience of organic agriculture makes me love nature more.5.491.208
WBWB1I feel very happy.5.631.127[93,94,95]
WB2I am very close to my ideal life.5.581.118
WB3I am very satisfied with life.5.451.199
WB4I am interested in daily activities.5.671.082
WB5I am optimistic about the future.5.571.099
WB6I am physically and mentally healthy.5.491.153
WB7I have good interpersonal relationships.5.511.167
WB8I think my living environment is very good.5.501.196
PEBPEB1I like to participate in the experience of organic tourism.5.261.257[40]
PEB2I prefer to buy organic agricultural products.5.291.216
PEB3I am willing to share with others the ideas and practices of environmental protection in organic agriculture.5.281.231
PEB4I am willing to protect the organic agricultural environment more actively.5.551.144

References

  1. Thomas, K.; Hardy, R.D.; Lazrus, H.; Mendez, M.; Orlove, B.; Rivera-Collazo, I.; Roberts, J.T.; Rockman, M.; Warner, B.P.; Winthrop, R. Explaining differential vulnerability to climate change: A social science review. WIREs Clim. Chang. 2019, 10, e565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  2. Williamson, K.; Satre-Meloy, A.; Velasco, K.; Green, K. Climate Change needs Behavior Change: Making the Case for Behavioral Solutions to Reduce Global Warming; Rare: Arlington, VA, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  3. Ahmad, Z.; Hassan, N.M.; Khattak, M.N.; Moustafa, M.A.; Fakhri, M. Impact of tourist’s environmental awareness on pro-environmental behavior with the mediating effect of tourist’s environmental concern and moderating effect of tourist’s environmental attachment. Sustainability 2021, 13, 12998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Francisco, A.S.-B.; Luigi, B.; Enrique, H.T.; José, L.R.-C. Pollutants and Greenhouse Gases Emissions Produced by Tourism Life Cycle: Possible Solutions to Reduce Emissions and to Introduce Adaptation Measures. In Air Pollution; Budi, H., Ed.; IntechOpen: Rijeka, Croatia, 2012; p. Ch. 4. [Google Scholar]
  5. Brandano, M.G.; Osti, L.; Pulina, M. An integrated demand and supply conceptual framework: Investigating agritourism services. Int. J. Tour. Res. 2018, 20, 713–725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Shah, C.; Gibson, D.; Shah, S.; Pratt, S. Exploring a market for agritourism in Fiji: Tourists’ perspective. Tour. Recreat. Res. 2020, 45, 204–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Wu, T.-C. Agriculture tourism and the transformation of rural countryside. Tour. Geogr. 2018, 20, 354–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Xue, L.-L.; Chang, Y.-R.; Shen, C.-C. The Sustainable Development of Organic Agriculture-Tourism: The Role of Consumer Landscape and Pro-Environment Behavior. Sustainability 2020, 12, 6264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Ammirato, S.; Felicetti, A.M. The Potential of Agritourism in Revitalizing Rural Communities: Some Empirical Results. In Proceedings of the 14th Working Conference on Virtual Enterprises, Dresden, Germany, 30 September–2 October 2013; pp. 489–497. [Google Scholar]
  10. Barbieri, C.; Xu, S.; Gil-Arroyo, C.; Rich, S.R. Agritourism, Farm Visit, or... ? A Branding Assessment for Recreation on Farms. J. Travel Res. 2016, 55, 1094–1108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Schilling, B.J.; Marxen, L.J.; Heinrich, H.H.; Brooks, F.J. The opportunity for agritourism development in New Jersey; Food Policy Institute: New Brunswick, NJ, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  12. Kastenholz, E.; Eusébio, C.; Carneiro, M.J. Purchase of local products within the rural tourist experience context. Tourism Economics 2016, 22, 729–748. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Ohe, Y. Investigating farmer’s identity and efficiency of tourism-oriented farm diversification. Tour. Econ. 2022, 28, 535–558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Sznajder, M.; Przezbórska, L.; Scrimgeour, F. Agritourism; CABI Publishing: Wallingford, UK, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  15. Oshkordina, A.A.; Okhrimenko, E.I.; Goncharova, N.A. Organic agriculture as a factor in the development of rural tourism in the Sverdlovsk region. BIO Web Conf. 2022, 42, 02015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Taiwan Organic Information Portal. Statistics on the Number and Area of Organic Farmers in 2021. Available online: https://info.organic.org.tw/8269/ (accessed on 19 February 2022).
  17. Ibáñez-Rueda, N.; Guillén-Royo, M.; Guardiola, J. Pro-Environmental Behavior, Connectedness to Nature, and Wellbeing Dimensions among Granada Students. Sustainability 2020, 12, 9171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. He, X.; Cheng, J.; Swanson, S.R.; Su, L.; Hu, D. The effect of destination employee service quality on tourist environmentally responsible behavior: A moderated mediation model incorporating environmental commitment, destination social responsibility and motive attributions. Tour. Manag. 2022, 90, 104470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Kiatkawsin, K.; Han, H. Young travelers’ intention to behave pro-environmentally: Merging the value-belief-norm theory and the expectancy theory. Tour. Manag. 2017, 59, 76–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Su, L.; Huang, S.; Pearce, J. How does destination social responsibility contribute to environmentally responsible behaviour? A destination resident perspective. J. Bus. Res. 2018, 86, 179–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Halder, P.; Hansen, E.N.; Kangas, J.; Laukkanen, T. How national culture and ethics matter in consumers’ green consumption values. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 265, 121754. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Wang, S.; Wang, J.; Li, J.; Yang, F. Do motivations contribute to local residents’ engagement in pro-environmental behaviors? Resident-destination relationship and pro-environmental climate perspective. J. Sustain. Tour. 2020, 28, 834–852. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Nimri, R.; Patiar, A.; Jin, X. The determinants of consumers’ intention of purchasing green hotel accommodation: Extending the theory of planned behaviour. J. Hosp. Tour. Manag. 2020, 45, 535–543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Weaver, D.B.; Lawton, L.J. Visitor Loyalty at a Private South Carolina Protected Area. J. Travel Res. 2011, 50, 335–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Steg, L.; Vlek, C. Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: An integrative review and research agenda. J. Environ. Psychol. 2009, 29, 309–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Kasser, T. Psychological need satisfaction, personal well-being, and ecological sustainability. Ecopsychology 2009, 1, 175–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Venhoeven, L.A.; Bolderdijk, J.W.; Steg, L. Why going green feels good. J. Environ. Psychol. 2020, 71, 101492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Binder, M.; Blankenberg, A.-K. Green lifestyles and subjective well-being: More about self-image than actual behavior? J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 2017, 137, 304–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Schmitt, M.T.; Aknin, L.B.; Axsen, J.; Shwom, R.L. Unpacking the Relationships Between Pro-environmental Behavior, Life Satisfaction, and Perceived Ecological Threat. Ecol. Econ. 2018, 143, 130–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Venhoeven, L.A.; Bolderdijk, J.W.; Steg, L. Explaining the Paradox: How Pro-Environmental Behaviour can both Thwart and Foster Well-Being. Sustainability 2013, 5, 1372–1386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Shen, C.; Liu, D.; Tseng, T. Establishing an organic agricultural tourism attachment model by integrating the means-end chain method and fuzzy aggregation operator. J. Outdoor Recreat. Study 2020, 33, 67–114. [Google Scholar]
  32. Chubchuwong, M.; Beise-Zee, R.; Speece, M.W. The Effect of Nature-based Tourism, Destination Attachment and Property Ownership on Environmental-friendliness of Visitors: A Study in Thailand. Asia Pac. J. Tour. Res. 2015, 20, 656–679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Morais, D.B.; Lin, C.-H. Why Do First-Time and Repeat Visitors Patronize a Destination? J. Travel Tour. Mark. 2010, 27, 193–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Ramkissoon, H.; Smith, L.D.G.; Weiler, B. Relationships between place attachment, place satisfaction and pro-environmental behaviour in an Australian national park. J. Sustain. Tour. 2013, 21, 434–457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Vaske, J.J.; Kobrin, K.C. Place Attachment and Environmentally Responsible Behavior. J. Environ. Educ. 2001, 32, 16–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Hou, J.-S.; Lin, C.-H.; Morais, D.B. Antecedents of Attachment to a Cultural Tourism Destination: The Case of Hakka and Non-Hakka Taiwanese Visitors to Pei-Pu, Taiwan. J. Travel Res. 2005, 44, 221–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Yuksel, A.; Yuksel, F.; Bilim, Y. Destination attachment: Effects on customer satisfaction and cognitive, affective and conative loyalty. Tour. Manag. 2010, 31, 274–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Rosalina, P.D.; Dupre, K.; Wang, Y. Rural tourism: A systematic literature review on definitions and challenges. J. Hosp. Tour. Manag. 2021, 47, 134–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Seraphin, H.; Dosquet, F. Mountain tourism and second home tourism as post COVID-19 lockdown placebo? Worldw. Hosp. Tour. Themes 2020, 12, 485–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Raworth, K. A Safe and Just Space for Humanity: Can We Live within the Doughnut; Oxfam International: Oxford, Britain; Volume 8.
  41. Herremans, I.M.; Reid, R.E. Developing Awareness of the Sustainability Concept. J. Environ. Educ. 2002, 34, 16–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Malik, C.; Singhal, N. Consumer environmental attitude and willingness to purchase environmentally friendly products: An SEM approach. Vision 2017, 21, 152–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Radman, M. Consumer consumption and perception of organic products in Croatia. Br. Food J. 2005, 107, 263–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Daryanto, A.; Song, Z. A meta-analysis of the relationship between place attachment and pro-environmental behaviour. J. Bus. Res. 2021, 123, 208–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Meloni, A.; Fornara, F.; Carrus, G. Predicting pro-environmental behaviors in the urban context: The direct or moderated effect of urban stress, city identity, and worldviews. Cities 2019, 88, 83–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Zhang, D.; Tu, Y. Green building, pro-environmental behavior and well-being: Evidence from Singapore. Cities 2021, 108, 102980. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Scannell, L.; Gifford, R. The relations between natural and civic place attachment and pro-environmental behavior. J. Environ. Psychol. 2010, 30, 289–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Lewis, W.W. The Power of Productivity: Wealth, Poverty, and the Threat to Global Stability; University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  49. Halpenny, E.A. Pro-environmental behaviours and park visitors: The effect of place attachment. J. Environ. Psychol. 2010, 30, 409–421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Ramkissoon, H.; Graham Smith, L.D.; Weiler, B. Testing the dimensionality of place attachment and its relationships with place satisfaction and pro-environmental behaviours: A structural equation modelling approach. Tour. Manag. 2013, 36, 552–566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. Walker, A.J.; Ryan, R.L. Place attachment and landscape preservation in rural New England: A Maine case study. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2008, 86, 141–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Stokols, D. People in places: A transactional view of settings. Cogn. Soc. Behav. Environ. 1981, 441–488. [Google Scholar]
  53. Dang, N.H.; Maurer, O. Place-Related Concepts and Pro-Environmental Behavior in Tourism Research: A Conceptual Framework. Sustainability 2021, 13, 11861. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Park, C.W.; MacInnis, D.J.; Priester, J.; Eisingerich, A.B.; Iacobucci, D. Brand attachment and brand attitude strength: Conceptual and empirical differentiation of two critical brand equity drivers. J. Mark. 2010, 74, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  55. Gosling, E.; Williams, K.J. Connectedness to nature, place attachment and conservation behaviour: Testing connectedness theory among farmers. J. Environ. Psychol. 2010, 30, 298–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Beery, T.H.; Wolf-Watz, D. Nature to place: Rethinking the environmental connectedness perspective. J. Environ. Psychol. 2014, 40, 198–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Ramkissoon, H.; Mavondo, F.; Uysal, M. Social involvement and park citizenship as moderators for quality-of-life in a national park. J. Sustain. Tour. 2018, 26, 341–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Anton, C.E.; Lawrence, C. The relationship between place attachment, the theory of planned behaviour and residents’ response to place change. J. Environ. Psychol. 2016, 47, 145–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Song, Z.; Soopramanien, D. Types of place attachment and pro-environmental behaviors of urban residents in Beijing. Cities 2019, 84, 112–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  60. Brehm, J.M.; Eisenhauer, B.W.; Stedman, R.C. Environmental concern: Examining the role of place meaning and place attachment. Soc. Nat. Resour. 2013, 26, 522–538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Fedorikhin, A.; Park, C.W.; Thomson, M. Beyond fit and attitude: The effect of emotional attachment on consumer responses to brand extensions. J. Consum. Psychol. 2008, 18, 281–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Chan, E.S.; Hon, A.H.; Chan, W.; Okumus, F. What drives employees’ intentions to implement green practices in hotels? The role of knowledge, awareness, concern and ecological behaviour. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2014, 40, 20–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Jang, Y.J.; Kim, W.G.; Lee, H.Y. Coffee shop consumers’ emotional attachment and loyalty to green stores: The moderating role of green consciousness. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2015, 44, 146–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Vada, S.; Prentice, C.; Hsiao, A. The influence of tourism experience and well-being on place attachment. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2019, 47, 322–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Jo, J.-H.; Shin, S.; Son, Y.-G.; An, B.-C. Seniors’ Participation in Gardening Improves Nature Relatedness, Psychological Well-being, and Pro-environmental Behavioral Intentions. J. People Plants Environ. 2022, 25, 297–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Whitburn, J.; Linklater, W.; Abrahamse, W. Meta-analysis of human connection to nature and proenvironmental behavior. Conserv. Biol. 2020, 34, 180–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  67. Kim, M.; Koo, D.-W. Visitors’ pro-environmental behavior and the underlying motivations for natural environment: Merging dual concern theory and attachment theory. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2020, 56, 102147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Lee, W.H.; Moscardo, G. Understanding the impact of ecotourism resort experiences on tourists’ environmental attitudes and behavioural intentions. Journal of sustainable tourism 2005, 13, 546–565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Sekhokoane, L.; Qie, N.; Rau, P.-L.P. Do Consumption Values and Environmental Awareness Impact on Green Consumption in China? In Proceedings of the Cross-Cultural Design, Cham, Switzerland, 14 May 2017; pp. 713–723. [Google Scholar]
  70. Zelenski, J.M.; Nisbet, E.K. Happiness and Feeling Connected:The Distinct Role of Nature Relatedness. Environ. Behav. 2014, 46, 3–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  71. Yu, X.; Wu, X.; Zhang, Y.; Wang, Y. Factors driving environmentally responsible behaviors by tourists: A case study of Taiwan, China. Tour. Trib. 2015, 30, 49–59. [Google Scholar]
  72. Lee, W.; Lee, J.K. Can Recreation Specialization Negatively Impact Pro-Environmental Behavior in Hiking Activity? A Self-Interest Motivational View. Leis. Sci. 2021, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Alcock, I.; White, M.P.; Pahl, S.; Duarte-Davidson, R.; Fleming, L.E. Associations between pro-environmental behaviour and neighbourhood nature, nature visit frequency and nature appreciation: Evidence from a nationally representative survey in England. Environ. Int. 2020, 136, 105441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Lin, L.P.; Chang, H.H. Modeling the Relationships Among Runners’ Serious Leisure, Attachment, and Pro-environmental Behavior. J. Tour. Travel Res. 2019, 14, 69–90. [Google Scholar]
  75. Lee, T.H. How recreation involvement, place attachment and conservation commitment affect environmentally responsible behavior. J. Sustain. Tour. 2011, 19, 895–915. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Dunn, E.W.; Aknin, L.B.; Norton, M.I. Spending money on others promotes happiness. Science 2008, 319, 1687–1688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  77. Kasser, T. Living both well and sustainably: A review of the literature, with some reflections on future research, interventions and policy. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. A Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 2017, 375, 20160369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  78. Ouyang, X.; Qi, W.E.; Song, D.; Zhou, J. Does Subjective Well-Being Promote Pro-Environmental Behaviors? Evidence from Rural Residents in China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 5992. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Soni, M. Mediating role of pro-environmental behavior in environmentally specific transformational leadership and subjective well-being. Benchmarking ahead-of-print. 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Widayat, W.; Praharjo, A.; Putri, V.P.; Andharini, S.N.; Masudin, I. Responsible Consumer Behavior: Driving Factors of Pro-Environmental Behavior toward Post-Consumption Plastic Packaging. Sustainability 2022, 14, 425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Kollmuss, A.; Agyeman, J. Mind the Gap: Why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environ. Educ. Res. 2002, 8, 239–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  82. Meseroll, S. The Good Life: Unifying the Philosophy and Psychology of Well-Being. Philos. Q. 2016, 67, 427–429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Welsch, H.; Kühling, J. Pro-environmental behavior and rational consumer choice: Evidence from surveys of life satisfaction. J. Econ. Psychol. 2010, 31, 405–420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Schultz, P.W. New Environmental Theories: Empathizing With Nature: The Effects of Perspective Taking on Concern for Environmental Issues. J. Soc. Issues 2000, 56, 391–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Schultz, P.; Zelezny, L.; Dalrymple, N. A multi-national perspectiveon the relationship between Judeo-Christian religious beliefs and attitudes ofenvironmental concern. Environ. Behav. 2000, 32, 560–575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  86. Davis, J.L.; Green, J.D.; Reed, A. Interdependence with the environment: Commitment, interconnectedness, and environmental behavior. J. Environ. Psychol. 2009, 29, 173–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Joaquim Araújo de Azevedo, A.; João Ferreira Custódio, M.; Pereira Antunes Perna, F. “Are you happy here?”: The relationship between quality of life and place attachment. J. Place Manag. Dev. 2013, 6, 102–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Lin, M.-Z. Taiwan’s Organic Agriculture Drives Results. Available online: https://www.coa.gov.tw/ws.php?id=23259 (accessed on 10 February 2022).
  89. Wetzels, M.; Odekerken-Schröder, G.; van Oppen, C. Using PLS Path Modeling for Assessing Hierarchical Construct Models: Guidelines and Empirical Illustration. MIS Q. 2009, 33, 177–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Bonett, D.G. Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychol. Bull. 1980, 88, 588–606. [Google Scholar]
  91. Shi, Y.; Bettache, K.; Zhang, N.; Xue, L. Constructing nostalgia in tourism: A comparison analysis of genuine and artificial approaches. J. Destin. Mark. Manag. 2021, 19, 100488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Naz, S.; Jamshed, S.; Nisar, Q.A.; Nasir, N. Green HRM, psychological green climate and pro-environmental behaviors: An efficacious drive towards environmental performance in China. In Key Topics in Health, Nature, and Behavior; Springer Nature: Cham, Switzerland, 2022; pp. 95–110. [Google Scholar]
  93. Pasanen, T.P.; Ojala, A.; Tyrväinen, L.; Korpela, K.M. Restoration, well-being, and everyday physical activity in indoor, built outdoor and natural outdoor settings. J. Environ. Psychol. 2018, 59, 85–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Wang, Y.-C.; Liu, C.-R.; Huang, W.-S.; Chen, S.-P. Destination Fascination and Destination Loyalty: Subjective Well-Being and Destination Attachment as Mediators. J. Travel Res. 2020, 59, 496–511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Basu, M.; Hashimoto, S.; Dasgupta, R. The mediating role of place attachment between nature connectedness and human well-being: Perspectives from Japan. Sustain. Sci. 2020, 15, 849–862. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Agriculture 12 02022 g001 550
Figure 1. Path coefficients of the structural model. Note: *** p < 0.001, ** p < 0.010.
Figure 1. Path coefficients of the structural model. Note: *** p < 0.001, ** p < 0.010.
Agriculture 12 02022 g001
Table
Table 1. Descriptive characteristics of the samples.
Table 1. Descriptive characteristics of the samples.
ItemsVariablesN%ItemsVariablesN%
GenderMale22751.8OccupationCivil servant4610.5
Female21148.2Service12628.8
Marital statusMarried25959.1Business8820.1
Freelance6013.7
Single16437.4Industry and Commerce8519.4
other153.4Others337.5
Age(years)22–31358.0Place of residenceNorthern region5813.2
32–4120647.0Central region255.7
42–5115435.2Southern region34779.2
52–61278.4East area81.8
Above 6261.4Monthly income (TWD)≤25,000409.1
EducationElementary and middle61.425,001–35,00010724.4
High school6414.635,001–45,0006314.4
45,001–55,0007316.7
College30068.555,001–65,000358.0
Graduate and above6815.5Above 65,00012027.4
Table
Table 2. Result of the confirmatory factor analysis.
Table 2. Result of the confirmatory factor analysis.
PathCoefficientt-ValueSMCStandardized ResidualsCronbach’s αCRAVE
PLA→PLA10.8916.690.740.280.9100.8920.675
PLA→PLA20.8314.850.640.39
PLA→PLA30.7913.750.570.47
PLA→PLA40.9117.040.760.27
PDA→PDA10.9418.040.810.210.9300.9270.760
PDA→PDA20.9117.100.750.27
PDA→PDA30.9518.120.810.21
PDA→PDA40.8415.520.660.36
EVA→EVA10.9519.060.860.150.9250.9590.886
EVA→EVA20.9819.760.900.11
EVA→EVA30.9618.270.900.10
ACA→ACA10.9117.320.760.260.9480.9500.790
ACA→ACA20.9518.400.810.21
ACA→ACA30.8815.560.720.30
ACA→ACA40.9618.710.830.18
ACA→ACA50.9518.330.820.20
WB→WB10.84 0.650.370.9250.9430.674
WB→WB20.7512.700.530.51
WB→WB30.8715.230.6930.30
WB→WB40.8913.560.70.34
WB→WB50.8614.870.670.37
WB→WB60.7111.300.440.64
WB→WB70.7311.960.480.58
WB→WB80.7511.000.500.56
PEB→PEB10.90 0.740.290.9250.8900.669
PEB→PEB20.8215.330.610.43
PEB→PEB30.8717.310.710.31
PEB→PEB40.8315.580.620.42
Table
Table 3. Discriminant validity of the constructs.
Table 3. Discriminant validity of the constructs.
MeanSDPLAPDAEVAACAWBPEB
PLA5.201.1070.822
PDA5.501.1050.7620.872
EVA5.291.1230.8220.8450.941
ACA5.431.0690.8170.7970.9440.889
WB5.370.9670.6660.6450.7740.7670.821
PEB5.351.0960.7560.8440.8410.8270.7090.818
Table
Table 4. Tested results of hypotheses.
Table 4. Tested results of hypotheses.
Hypothesesβ Coefficientt ValuepResult
H1a0.38 ***4.03p < 0.05Accepted
H1b0.22 **2.33p < 0.05Accepted
H1c0.16 ***3.71p < 0.05Accepted
H1d0.36 ***3.46p < 0.05Accepted
H20.84 ***13.17p < 0.05Accepted
Note: *** p < 0.001, ** p < 0.010.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Shen, C.-C.; Wang, D.; Loverio, J.P.; Liu, H.-L.; Wang, H.-Y. Influence of Attachment Theory on Pro-Environmental Behavior and Well-Being: A Case of Organic Agricultural Tourism in Taiwan Hualien and Taitung. Agriculture 2022, 12, 2022. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture12122022

AMA Style

Shen C-C, Wang D, Loverio JP, Liu H-L, Wang H-Y. Influence of Attachment Theory on Pro-Environmental Behavior and Well-Being: A Case of Organic Agricultural Tourism in Taiwan Hualien and Taitung. Agriculture. 2022; 12(12):2022. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture12122022

Chicago/Turabian Style

Shen, Ching-Cheng, Dan Wang, Jennifer Pasion Loverio, Hsi-Lin Liu, and Hsing-Yi Wang. 2022. "Influence of Attachment Theory on Pro-Environmental Behavior and Well-Being: A Case of Organic Agricultural Tourism in Taiwan Hualien and Taitung" Agriculture 12, no. 12: 2022. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture12122022

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop