Understanding the Determinants of Geologically Responsible Behaviour among Geotourists: A Multi-Destination Analysis
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
3. Factor Affecting Environmentally Responsible Attitude and Behaviour
4. Methodology
4.1. Selection of Study Sites
4.2. Geopark Characteristics
4.3. Questionnaire Design
4.4. Questionnaire Survey and Data Analysis
5. Results
5.1. Initial Model and Factor Loadings
5.2. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)
- CFI (comparative fit index): The close fit index is between 0 and 1. When the value is more significant than 0.9, the model is acceptable.
- χ2/df: This is called the relative chi-square value. A value greater than ten indicates that the model is not ideal, a value less than five indicates that the model is acceptable, and a value less than three indicates that the model is better.
- GFI (goodness of fit index): This index ranges from 0 to 1. The GFI should be equal to or greater than 0.85 to accept the model.
- NFI (normed fit index): The specification adaptation index is an increased value adaptation measurement. The general recommended value of an acceptable model is above 0.85.
- RMSEA (root mean square error of approximation): This model adaptation index has received considerable attention in recent years. When the RMSEA is less than or equal to 0.05, it means a perfect fit; the range of 0.05–0.08 indicates a good fit; a moderate fit is in the field of 0.08–0.1, and a bad fit is more than 0.1.
5.3. Correlation between Constructs
5.3.1. Correlation Analysis
5.3.2. Structural Equation Model
5.4. Discussion and Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Cheung, L.T. The effect of geopark visitors’ travel motivations on their willingness to pay for accredited geo-guided tours. Geoheritage 2016, 8, 201–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Newsome, D.; Dowling, R.; Leung, Y.-F. The nature and management of geotourism: A case study of two established iconic geotourism destinations. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 2012, 2–3, 19–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mustafa, H.; Omar, B.; Mukhiar, S.N.S.; Park, O.; Zainol, W.W. Exploring Island Destination Competitiveness of Langkawi and Jeju UNESCO Global Geopark: Assessment from International Tourists and Tourism Practitioners. Tour. Plan. Dev. 2023, 20, 1054–1081. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fung, C.K.W.; Jim, C.Y. Segmentation by motivation of Hong Kong Global Geopark visitors in relation to sustainable nature-based tourism. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 2015, 22, 76–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guo, W.; Chung, S. Using Tourism Carrying Capacity to Strengthen UNESCO Global Geopark Management in Hong Kong. Geoheritage 2019, 11, 193–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cheung, L.T.; Fok, L.; Fang, W. Understanding geopark visitors’ preferences and willingness to pay for global geopark management and conservation. J. Ecotour. 2014, 13, 35–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, L.; Guo, F.; Shao, C.; Du, D.; Chen, F.; Luo, M. Geodiversity characterization of the Danxiashan UNESCO Global Geopark of China. Int. J. Geoherit. Parks 2022, 10, 459–476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ma, A.T.H.; Chow, A.S.Y.; Cheung, L.T.O.; Liu, S. Self-determined travel motivation and environmentally responsible behaviour of Chinese visitors to national forest protected areas in South China. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 2018, 16, e00480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Georgousis, E.; Savelides, S.; Mosios, S.; Holokolos, M.-V.; Drinia, H. The Need for Geoethical Awareness: The Importance of Geoenvironmental Education in Geoheritage Understanding in the Case of Meteora Geomorphes, Greece. Sustainability 2021, 13, 6626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mosios, S.; Georgousis, E.; Drinia, H. The Status of Geoethical Thinking in the Educational System of Greece: An Overview. Geosciences 2023, 13, 37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hines, J.M.; Hungerford, H.R.; Tomera, A.N. Analysis and synthesis of research on responsible environmental behavior: A meta-analysis. J. Environ. Educ. 1987, 18, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stern, P.C. New environmental theories: Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. J. Soc. Issues 2000, 56, 407–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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]
- Kilbourne, W.; Pickett, G. How materialism affects environmental beliefs, concern, and environmentally responsible behavior. J. Bus. Res. 2008, 61, 885–893. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cottrell, S.P. Influence of sociodemographics and environmental attitudes on general responsible environmental behavior among recreational boaters. Environ. Behav. 2003, 35, 347–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sivek, D.J.; Hungerford, H. Predictors of Responsible Behavior in Members of Three Wisconsin Conservation Organizations. J. Environ. Educ. 1990, 21, 35–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, W.H.; Moscardo, G. Understanding the Impact of Ecotourism Resort Experiences on Tourists’ Environmental Attitudes and Behavioural Intentions. J. Sustain. Tour. 2005, 13, 546–565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, T.H.; Jan, F.-H.; Yang, C.-C. Conceptualizing and measuring environmentally responsible behaviors from the perspective of community-based tourists. Tour. Manag. 2013, 36, 454–468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vaske, J.J.; Kobrin, K.C. Place attachment and environmentally responsible behavior. J. Environ. Educ. 2001, 32, 16–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Smith-Sebasto, N.J.; D’Costa, A. Designing a Likert-Type Scale to Predict Environmentally Responsible Behavior in Undergraduate Students: A Multistep Process. J. Environ. Educ. 1995, 27, 14–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ajzen, I.; Fishbein, M. Attitude-behavior relations: A theoretical analysis and review of empirical research. Psychol. Bull. 1977, 84, 888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kaiser, F.G. Environmental attitude and ecological behavior. In Proceedings of the 104th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association (APA), Toronto, ON, Canada, 9–13 August 1996. [Google Scholar]
- Chiu, Y.-T.H.; Lee, W.-I.; Chen, T.-H. Environmentally responsible behavior in ecotourism: Antecedents and implications. Tour. Manag. 2014, 40, 321–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, T.H.; Jan, F.-H. The effects of recreation experience, environmental attitude, and biospheric value on the environmentally responsible behavior of nature-based tourists. Environ. Manag. 2015, 56, 193–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Cheng, T.-M.; Wu, H.C. How do environmental knowledge, environmental sensitivity, and place attachment affect environmentally responsible behavior? An integrated approach for sustainable island tourism. J. Sustain. Tour. 2015, 23, 557–576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jackson, L.; Pang, M.F.; Brown, E.; Cain, S.; Dingle, C.; Bonebrake, T. Environmental attitudes and behaviors among secondary students in Hong Kong. Int. J. Comp. Educ. Dev. 2016, 18, 70–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chow, A.S.Y.; Cheng, I.N.Y.; Cheung, L.T.O. Self-determined travel motivations and ecologically responsible attitudes of nature-based visitors to the Ramsar wetland in South China. Ann. Leis. Res. 2019, 22, 42–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ajzen, I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 1991, 50, 179–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ajzen, I. Attitudes, Personality, and Behavior; McGraw-Hill Education: London, UK, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Fishbein, M.; Ajzen, I. Predicting and Changing Behavior: The Reasoned Action Approach; Taylor & Francis: Oxfordshire, UK, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Thapa, B.; Graefe, A.R.; Meyer, L.A. Moderator and Mediator Effects of Scuba Diving Specialization on Marine-Based Environmental Knowledge-Behavior Contingency. J. Environ. Educ. 2005, 37, 53–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gu, D.; Gao, S.; Wang, R.; Jiang, J.; Xu, Y. The negative associations between materialism and pro-environmental attitudes and behaviors: Individual and regional evidence from China. Environ. Behav. 2018, 52, 0013916518811902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bamberg, S.; Möser, G. Twenty years after Hines, Hungerford, and Tomera: A new meta-analysis of psycho-social determinants of pro-environmental behaviour. J. Environ. Psychol. 2007, 27, 14–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Budeanu, A. Sustainable tourist behaviour–a discussion of opportunities for change. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2007, 31, 499–508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cheung, L.T. Improving visitor management approaches for the changing preferences and behaviours of country park visitors in Hong Kong. Nat. Resour. Forum 2013, 47, 231–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cheung, L.T.O.; Fok, L. Assessing the role of ecotourism training in changing participants’ pro-environmental knowledge, attitudes and behaviours. Asia Pac. J. Tour. Res. 2014, 19, 645–661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cheung, L.T.; Lo, A.Y.; Fok, L. Recreational specialization and ecologically responsible behaviour of Chinese birdwatchers in Hong Kong. J. Sustain. Tour. 2017, 25, 817–831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ramkissoon, H.; Weiler, B.; Smith, L.D.G. Place attachment and pro-environmental behaviour in national parks: The development of a conceptual framework. J. Sustain. Tour. 2012, 20, 257–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cheung, L.T.O.; Hui, D.L.H. Influence of residents’ place attachment on heritage forest conservation awareness in a peri-urban area of Guangzhou, China. Urban For. Urban Green. 2018, 33, 37–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tuan, Y.-F. Space and place: Humanistic perspective. In Philosophy in Geography; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1979; pp. 387–427. [Google Scholar]
- Halpenny, E.A. Pro-environmental behaviours and park visitors: The effect of place attachment. J. Environ. Psychol. 2010, 30, 409–421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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]
- Shaykh-Baygloo, R. A multifaceted study of place attachment and its influences on civic involvement and place loyalty in Baharestan new town, Iran. Cities 2020, 96, 102473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dwyer, L.; Chen, N.; Lee, J. The role of place attachment in tourism research. J. Travel Tour. Mark. 2019, 36, 645–652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zou, W.; Wei, W.; Ding, S.; Xue, J. The relationship between place attachment and tourist loyalty: A meta-analysis. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 2022, 43, 100983. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kyle, G.; Graefe, A.; Manning, R.; Bacon, J. An Examination of the Relationship between Leisure Activity Involvement and Place Attachment among Hikers Along the Appalachian Trail. J. Leis. Res. 2003, 35, 249–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Singh, N.; Yu, J.; Ariza-Montes, A.; Han, H. Exploring the impact of functional, symbolic, and experiential image on approach behaviors among state-park tourists from India, Korea, and the USA. Humanit. Soc. Sci. Commun. 2023, 10, 36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Moore, S.A.; Rodger, K.; Taplin, R. Moving beyond visitor satisfaction to loyalty in nature-based tourism: A review and research agenda. Curr. Issues Tour. 2015, 18, 667–683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, H.-S. Measurement of visitors’ satisfaction with public zoos in Korea using importance-performance analysis. Tour. Manag. 2015, 47, 251–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kaiser, F.G.; Wolfing, S.; Fuhrer, U. Environmental attitude and ecological behaviour. J. Environ. Psychol. 1999, 19, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Petrolia, D.R.; Interis, M.G.; Hwang, J. America’s wetland? A national survey of willingness to pay for restoration of Louisiana’s coastal wetlands. Mar. Resour. Econ. 2014, 29, 17–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Valkila, N.; Saari, A. Attitude–behaviour gap in energy issues: Case study of three different Finnish residential areas. Energy Sustain. Dev. 2013, 17, 24–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Webb, D.; Soutar, G.N.; Mazzarol, T.; Saldaris, P. Self-determination theory and consumer behavioural change: Evidence from a household energy-saving behaviour study. J. Environ. Psychol. 2013, 35, 59–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cheung, L.T.; Chow, A.S.; Fok, L.; Yu, K.-M.; Chou, K.-L. The effect of self-determined motivation on household energy consumption behaviour in a metropolitan area in southern China. Energy Effic. 2017, 10, 549–561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dunlap, R.E.; Van Liere, K.D.; Mertig, A.; Jones, R.E. Measuring endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: A revised NEP scale. J. Soc. Issues 2000, 56, 425–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dunlap, R.E.; Jones, R.E. Environmental concern: Conceptual and measurement issues. In Handbook of Environmental Sociology; Dunlap, R.E., Michelson, W., Eds.; Greenwood Press: Westport, CT, USA, 2002; pp. 482–524. [Google Scholar]
- Luo, Y.; Deng, J. The New Environmental Paradigm and nature-based tourism motivation. J. Travel Res. 2008, 46, 392–402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Buckley, R.; Zhong, L.; Ma, X. Visitors to protected areas in China. Biol. Conserv. 2017, 209, 83–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- de Groot, J.I.M.; Steg, L. Relationships between value orientations, self-determined motivational types and pro-environmental behavioural intentions. J. Environ. Psychol. 2010, 30, 368–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chow, A.S.Y.; Liu, S.; Cheung, L.T.O. Importance of residents’ satisfaction for supporting future tourism development in rural areas of Hong Kong. Asian Geogr. 2019, 36, 185–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cheng, I.N.Y.; Cheung, L.T.O.; Chow, A.S.Y.; Fok, L.; Cheang, C.C. The roles interpretative programmes in supporting the sustainable operation of the nature-based activities. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 200, 380–389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Variables | Factor Loading | |
---|---|---|
Place attachment (Cronbach α: 0.879) | ||
P1 | Geo-tourism is meaningful to me a1. | 0.55 |
P2 | I identify strongly with this place a1. | 0.59 |
P3 | I am very attached to this place. | 0.68 |
P4 | I have a special connection to this place and other visitors who visit here a1. | 0.59 |
P5 | I enjoy visiting this place more than visiting any other place. | 0.74 |
P6 | I receive more satisfaction visiting this place than visiting any other place. | 0.76 |
P7 | Visiting this place is more important to me than visiting any other place. | 0.73 |
P8 | I would not substitute any other type of recreation for what I do here. | 0.64 |
P9 | I choose to visit this place because the admission fee is not expensive a1. | 0.38 |
P10 | I choose to visit this place because the location of the place is convenient a1. | 0.42 |
P11 | This destination is the best place for the activities I like to do a1. | 0.57 |
P12 | Visiting this destination makes me feel safe a1. | 0.57 |
P13 | I have a lot of memories at this place a1. | 0.56 |
P14 | I feel a general sense of well-being while visiting this destination a1. | 0.55 |
P15 | Visiting this place reminds me of my experiences in the past a1. | 0.52 |
P16 | This place has unique characteristics, such as architecture, historical monuments or a particular environment a1. | 0.40 |
P17 | When I am away, I miss this place a1. | 0.57 |
Environmentally responsible attitudes (Cronbach α: 0.656) | ||
A1 | The Earth has plenty of natural resources if we just learn how to develop them. a1 R | 0.31 |
A2 | For the sake of improved leisure opportunities, it is good to develop more recreation areas. a1 R | 0.21 |
A3 | When economic growth is in conflict with environmental conservation, environmental conservation should be given priority. | 0.61 |
A4 | Humans have the right to modify the natural environment to suit their needs. a1 R | 0.01 |
A5 | Plants and animals have as much right as humans to exist. | 0.66 |
A6 | Enjoying natural resources is a basic right. It is inappropriate for the government to make laws to control people’s use of natural resources. a1 R | 0.11 |
A7 | Human beings have the right to satisfy their own needs by altering the natural environment. a1 R | 0.01 |
A8 | When human beings engage in any leisure and recreational activities, they should avoid disturbing the local natural environment. | 0.67 |
A9 | The balance of nature is very delicate and easily upset. | 0.71 |
Geographically responsible behaviour (Cronbach α: 0.893) | ||
B1 | I do not take any rocks, fossils or minerals. | 0.74 |
B2 | I do not dig up, damage or deface any rocks at this geopark. | 0.80 |
B3 | I do not climb the rock columns or trample. | 0.67 |
B4 | I try to keep quiet during the trip. | 0.76 |
B5 | I try to maintain the quality of the local environment. | 0.81 |
B6 | I take all my clutter and garbage. | 0.65 |
B7 | I try to protect the fauna and flora during my trip. | 0.80 |
B8 | I accept the control policy of not entering the core area of the geopark a1. | 0.57 |
B9 | I report to the park administrator if I encounter any environmental pollution or destruction a1. | 0.58 |
B10 | I prefer to join tours guided by professional and skilled guides if there are any a1. | 0.39 |
B11 | I will share my experience with my friends or family a1. | 0.59 |
B12 | I will encourage my friends or family to join in geopark conservation a1. | 0.57 |
B13 | I will join in volunteering to help the public learn more about geo-tourism and geoparks a1. | 0.42 |
B14 | I will donate money to support this geopark a1. | 0.33 |
Tourism satisfaction (Cronbach α: 0.931) | ||
S1 | Unique geological features a1. | 0.49 |
S2 | Attractive mountainous areas a1. | 0.54 |
S3 | Diverse species of flora and fauna a1. | 0.58 |
S4 | Whole scenery and landscape a1. | 0.58 |
S5 | Convenient public transport a1. | 0.57 |
S6 | Clear and useful maps that display locations. | 0.72 |
S7 | Clear visiting signposts. | 0.73 |
S8 | Maintenance of geo-trails. | 0.68 |
S9 | Interesting information boards. | 0.75 |
S10 | Easy access to toilets. | 0.66 |
S11 | Sufficient security facilities (e.g., parapets, warning signs). | 0.68 |
S12 | Sufficient educational information about rocks and biological species. | 0.79 |
S13 | Sufficient recreational facilities (e.g., tables and benches, shelters). | 0.75 |
S14 | Sufficient conservation information about rocks and biological species. | 0.81 |
S15 | Integrated conservation strategy. | 0.79 |
S16 | Overall satisfaction. | 0.70 |
CFI | GFI | NFI | RMSEA | p | CMIN/DF | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Default model | 0.905 | 0.873 | 0.885 | 0.068 | 0.000 | 5.087 |
PA | ERA | GRB | SA | |
---|---|---|---|---|
PA | 1 | |||
ERA | −0.104 ** | 1 | ||
GRB | 0.385 ** | 0.178 ** | 1 | |
SA | 0.512 ** | 0.002 | 0.478 ** | 1 |
Variables | Range | Mean | Factor Loading | Average Variance Extracted | Composite Reliability | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Place attachment | 3.59 | 0.51 | 0.836 | |||
P3 | I am very attached to this place. | 1–5 | 4.07 | 0.68 | ||
P5 | I enjoy visiting this place more than visiting any other place. | 1–5 | 3.59 | 0.74 | ||
P6 | I receive more satisfaction from this place than visiting any other place. | 1–5 | 3.63 | 0.76 | ||
P7 | Visiting this place is more important to me than visiting any other place. | 1–5 | 3.47 | 0.73 | ||
P8 | I would not substitute any other type of recreation for what I do here. | 1–5 | 3.26 | 0.64 | ||
Environmentally responsible attitudes | 3.43 | 0.44 | 0.758 | |||
A3 | When economic growth conflicts with environmental conservation, environmental conservation should be prioritized. | 1–5 | 4.34 | 0.61 | ||
A5 | Plants and animals have as much right as humans to exist. | 1–5 | 4.32 | 0.66 | ||
A8 | When people engage in leisure and recreational activities, they should avoid disturbing the local natural environment. | 1–5 | 4.28 | 0.67 | ||
A9 | The balance of nature is very delicate and easily upset. | 1–5 | 4.25 | 0.71 | ||
Geologically responsible behaviour | 4.60 | 0.56 | 0.899 | |||
B1 | I do not take any rocks, fossils, or minerals. | 1–5 | 4.67 | 0.74 | ||
B2 | I do not dig up, damage, or deface any rocks at this geopark. | 1–5 | 4.71 | 0.80 | ||
B3 | I do not climb the rock columns or trample. | 1–5 | 4.54 | 0.67 | ||
B4 | I try to keep quiet during the trip. | 1–5 | 4.64 | 0.76 | ||
B5 | I try to maintain the quality of the local environment. | 1–5 | 4.67 | 0.81 | ||
B6 | I take all my clutter and garbage. | 1–5 | 4.34 | 0.65 | ||
B7 | I try to protect the fauna and flora during my trip. | 1–5 | 4.60 | 0.80 | ||
Visitor satisfaction | 3.77 | 0.54 | 0.928 | |||
S6 | Clear and useful maps that display locations. | 1–5 | 3.81 | 0.72 | ||
S7 | Clear visiting signposts. | 1–5 | 3.87 | 0.73 | ||
S8 | Maintenance of geo-trails. | 1–5 | 3.95 | 0.68 | ||
S9 | Interesting information board. | 1–5 | 3.54 | 0.75 | ||
S10 | Easy access to toilets. | 1–5 | 3.67 | 0.66 | ||
S11 | Sufficient security facilities (e.g., parapets, warning signs). | 1–5 | 3.84 | 0.68 | ||
S12 | Sufficient educational information about rocks and biological species. | 1–5 | 3.66 | 0.79 | ||
S13 | Sufficient recreational facilities (e.g., tables and benches, shelters). | 1–5 | 3.68 | 0.75 | ||
S14 | Sufficient conservation information about rocks and biological species. | 1–5 | 3.68 | 0.81 | ||
S15 | Integrated conservation strategy. | 1–5 | 3.74 | 0.79 | ||
S16 | Overall satisfaction. | 1–5 | 4.02 | 0.70 |
Estimate | S.E. | C.R. | p | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
H1 | PA-->GRB | −0.055 | 0.026 | −2.111 | 0.035 |
H2 | ERA-->GRB | 0.534 | 0.037 | 14.253 | *** |
H3 | Satisfaction-->GRB | 0.072 | 0.037 | 1.935 | 0.053 |
H6 | PA-->ERA | 0.14 | 0.039 | 3.643 | *** |
H7 | Satisfaction-->ERA | 0.349 | 0.055 | 6.311 | *** |
H8 | PA-->Satisfaction | 0.251 | 0.028 | 8.893 | *** |
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
Gou, G.R.; Fang, W.; Cheung, L.T.O.; Fok, L.; Chow, A.S.Y.; Zhang, K. Understanding the Determinants of Geologically Responsible Behaviour among Geotourists: A Multi-Destination Analysis. Tour. Hosp. 2024, 5, 1-15. https://doi.org/10.3390/tourhosp5010001
Gou GR, Fang W, Cheung LTO, Fok L, Chow ASY, Zhang K. Understanding the Determinants of Geologically Responsible Behaviour among Geotourists: A Multi-Destination Analysis. Tourism and Hospitality. 2024; 5(1):1-15. https://doi.org/10.3390/tourhosp5010001
Chicago/Turabian StyleGou, Gloria Rui, Wei Fang, Lewis T. O. Cheung, Lincoln Fok, Alice S. Y. Chow, and Ke Zhang. 2024. "Understanding the Determinants of Geologically Responsible Behaviour among Geotourists: A Multi-Destination Analysis" Tourism and Hospitality 5, no. 1: 1-15. https://doi.org/10.3390/tourhosp5010001
APA StyleGou, G. R., Fang, W., Cheung, L. T. O., Fok, L., Chow, A. S. Y., & Zhang, K. (2024). Understanding the Determinants of Geologically Responsible Behaviour among Geotourists: A Multi-Destination Analysis. Tourism and Hospitality, 5(1), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.3390/tourhosp5010001