Environmentally Responsible Behavior in National Forest Trails: Comparison
View Latest Version
Please note this is a comparison between Version 2 by Vivi Li and Version 1 by Qing Zhang.

Tourism has been developing rapidly and causing various effects on ecological environment around the world. The impact of forest hiking trails is of particular importance, as they pass through natural areas with greater ecosystem diversity, such as mountains and forests. Therefore, enhancing tourists’ environmentally responsible behavior (ERB) on forest trails has become an important issue to be addressed. Scholars have applied different theories to study ERB, including the theory of planned behavior (TPB), attitude behavior context theory, the norm activation model (NAM), and value belief norm theory (VBN). The extant literature on ERB can be categorized into two primary perspectives, namely, rationality- and morality-based approaches.

  • environmentally responsible behavior
  • intention
  • theory of planned behavior
  • norm activation model
  • trail tourist

1. Introduction

In recent decades, tourism has been developing rapidly and causing various effects on ecological environment around the world [1,2,3,4,5,6,7][1][2][3][4][5][6][7]. The impact of forest hiking trails is of particular importance, as they pass through natural areas with greater ecosystem diversity, such as mountains and forests. The mountain terrain is particularly precarious with a more fragile ecological environment, where it is more difficult to collect and transfer litter [8,9,10,11,12,13][8][9][10][11][12][13]. Prior research has reported that tourist hiking activities in trails can cause irreversible environmental damage to the surrounding areas [8,14,15,16,17,18][8][14][15][16][17][18]. Therefore, enhancing tourists’ environmentally responsible behavior (ERB) on forest trails has become an important issue to be addressed [14,15,18,19,20,21,22][14][15][18][19][20][21][22].
Scholars have applied different theories to study ERB, including the theory of planned behavior (TPB) [14[14][15][23][24][25][26][27][28],15,23,24,25,26,27,28], attitude behavior context theory [29[29][30],30], the norm activation model (NAM) [3[3][28][31][32][33][34],28,31,32,33,34], and value belief norm theory (VBN) [14,35,36][14][35][36]. The extant literature on ERB can be categorized into two primary perspectives, namely, rationality- and morality-based approaches [21,32,37][21][32][37]. Researchers use the rational-choice model to analyze ERB, represented by TPB [22,38,39][22][38][39]. In contrast, other scholars argue that ERB is primarily influenced by morality, and they typically adopt NAM as the theoretical foundation [22,40,41,42][22][40][41][42]. Despite the different approaches, limited research has been conducted to examine the rationality and morality models comparatively regarding tourists’ ERB.
In addition to the theoretical inconsistency, little research has examined trail tourists’ ERB, particularly in major destinations such as China [43]. Although China’s trail tourists belong to a remarkable segment in terms of size and expenditure, this group has been rarely studied in previous literature [17,43][17][43]. Hiking is a popular tourist activity that combines the elements of nature tourism, ecotourism, and adventure tourism. It helps people reduce stress, enhance mental health, and improve quality of life through walking on trails and observing wildlife and sceneries [44,45,46,47][44][45][46][47]. Most prior studies used traditional tourists as the research object, but trail tourists present unique characteristics. For example, trail tourists are better educated and more environmentally conscious [48]. They value the natural environment and landscape of destinations and support nature conservation [49,50][49][50]. Prior research revealed that tourists’ past experience predicts their future behavioral intention [28,51,52][28][51][52]; however, trail tourists’ ERB, particularly the differences between the beginners and experienced trail tourists, are yet to be explored.

2. Rationality and ERB

The Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA), proposed by Ajzen (1985), explains an individual’s motivation in his/her cognizant plan/decision to exert efforts in performing a specific behavior. TRA was further extended by Ajzen by adding the “perceived behavior control” variable to form the theory of planned behavior (TPB) [51,53][51][53]. TPB proposes that in normal life, an individual’s behavior is immediately determined by behavioral intentions, which are influenced by a combination of three factors: attitude toward the behavior, subjective norm, and perceived behavioral control. First, attitude (ATT) refers to the degree of personal preference for a certain behavior, that is, the individual’s feelings about the behavior, including positive and negative feelings. In TPB, attitude is an important factor that affects behavioral intention. Second, subjective norm (SN) refers to the social pressure that an individual feels when he or she behaves in a certain way. In other words, the individual perceives the attitude and opinion of the reference object (e.g., parents, friends, or colleagues) towards a certain type of behavior, which would influence his/her decision to undertake the type of behavior or not. Third, perceived behavioral control (PBC) refers to the degree to which individuals perceive the ease or difficulty when undertaking a certain type of behavior. As TPB has good predictive and explanatory capability in behavioral research, it is widely used in various research contexts across disciplines, including consumers’ choice on green hotels [54], pro-environmental behavior [55], tourism behavior [56], residents’ environmental complaints [57], and environmental protection behavior [14,15,23,24,25,26,27,28,58,59][14][15][23][24][25][26][27][28][58][59]. These studies on TPB support that attitude, subjective norm, and perceived behavioral control have positive impacts on behavioral intention. For instance, Hu et al. (2018) [15], Zarei et al. (2020) [14], and Han et al. (2017) [28] revealed the same findings that tourists’ attitude, subjective norm, and perceived behavioral control significantly affect their behavioral intention. TPB adopts a rational decision-making framework; the basic principle of TPB is that an individual, as an economic person, is likely to choose the rational choice with the least effort and the highest benefit [58]. Based on the TPB model, when an action is evaluated as important and valuable by him-/herself or the people around, the individual develops an intention to engage in that action. In tResearchis study, we ers propose that trail tourists tend to participate in ERB when the benefits outweigh the costs, it is easy to do, or they are being affected by their reference group [36,58,60,61][36][58][60][61].

3. Morality and ERB

Schwartz proposed the norm activation theory (NAM) [40], in which personal norm is the core factor to form a behavioral intention. NAM has been utilized to explain altruistic environmental protection behavior [28,31,33][28][31][33]. NAM is mainly composed of three elements, including awareness of consequences (AC), ascription of responsibility (AR), and personal norm (PN). First, AC refers to an individual’s awareness of certain negative consequences caused by undertaking (or not undertaking) a behavior. Second, AR refers to the individual’s sense of responsibility for the negative consequences. Third, PN represents people’s fulfillment of moral obligation by taking or avoiding certain actions [36,62][36][62]. In environmental behavior studies, when people are aware that not performing environmental behavior would cause negative impact on the environment or on others (AC), and they attribute the negative consequences to their own responsibility (AR), they tend to feel the personal moral obligation of conduct, which leads to the individuals’ environmental behavioral intention [63]. NAM has been widely adopted to support the link between morality and ERB. NAM is derived from the study of moral decision-making [32], which mainly explains the pro-social and pro-environmental behavior of altruism [37]. NAM proposes that individuals’ norms or a sense of moral obligation are essential to encourage individuals’ environmental responsibility behavior [59[59][64],64], which establishes the close connection between people’s moral reasoning and altruistic behavior [65,66][65][66]. Recent research analyzes tourists’ sense of responsibility and ethical norms of participating in environmental protection behavior [31,32,33[31][32][33][67][68],67,68], willingness to pay for carbon [69], and energy-saving behavior [70,71,72][70][71][72]. In the NAM model, the relationships between AC, AR, PN, and BI have been evidenced from previous literature. For instance, the study of Zhang et al. (2016) [31] on predicting Chinses citizens’ pro-environmental behaviors revealed that awareness of consequences has a positive influence on citizens’ ascription of responsibility and personal norm. Moreover, Wu et al. (2022) [34] also revealed that ascription of responsibility positively affects personal norm, and personal norm positively affects behavioral intention in examining Chinese tourists’ environmental behavior at a lake destination.

References

  1. Arbulú, I.; Lozano, J.; Rey-Maquieira, J. The challenges of municipal solid waste management systems provided by public-private partnerships in mature tourist destinations: The case of Mallorca. Waste Manag. 2016, 51, 252–258.
  2. Line, N.D.; Hanks, L.; Miao, L. Image matters: Incentivizing green tourism behavior. J. Travel. Res. 2018, 57, 296–309.
  3. Zhang, Y.L.; Zhang, J.; Ye, Y.Y.; Wu, Q.T.; Jin, L.X.; Zhang, H.G. Residents’ Environmental Conservation Behaviors at Tourist Sites: Broadening the Norm Activation Framework by Adopting Environment Attachment. Sustainability 2016, 8, 571.
  4. Zhang, J.C.; Chao, W.X.; Alastair, M.; Morrison; Kun, Z. Fostering Resident Pro-Environmental Behavior: The Roles of Destination Image and Confucian Culture. Sustainability 2020, 12, 597.
  5. Nunkoo, R.; Seetanah, B.; Rifkha, Z.; Jaffur, K.; George, P.; Moraghen, W. Tourism and Economic Growth: A Meta-regression Analysis. J. Travel. Res. 2019, 59, 404–423.
  6. Zhang, K.; Hou, Y.; Li, G. Tourists and air pollution: How and why air pollution magnifies tourists’ suspicion of service providers. J. Travel. Res. 2020, 59, 661–673.
  7. 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.
  8. Evju, M.; Hagen, D.; Jokerud, M.; Olsen, S.L.; Selvaag, S.K.; Vistad, O.I. Effects of mountain biking versus hiking on trails under different environmental conditions. J Environ Manag. 2021, 278, 111554.
  9. Gao, Y.; Zou, L.; Morrison, A.M.; Wu, F. Do situations influence the environmentally responsible behaviors of national park visitors? Survey from Shennongjia National Park, Hubei Province, China. Land 2021, 10, 891.
  10. Gupta, A.; Arora, N.; Sharma, R.; Mishra, A. Determinants of Tourists’ Site-Specific Environmentally Responsible Behavior: An Eco-Sensitive Zone Perspective. J. Travel. Res. 2021, 00472875211030328.
  11. Lee, W.; Jeong, C. Effects of pro-environmental destination image and leisure sports mania on motivation and pro-environmental behavior of visitors to Korea’s national parks. J. Destin. Mark. Manag. 2018, 10, 25–35.
  12. Wang, S.; Ji, C.; He, H.; Zhang, Z.; Zhang, L. Tourists’ waste reduction behavioral intentions at tourist destinations: An integrative research framework. Sustain. Prod. Consump. 2021, 25, 540–550.
  13. Wu, J.S.; Font, X.; Liu, J. The elusive impact of pro-environmental intention on holiday on pro-environmental behaviour at home. Tour. Manag. 2021, 85, 104283.
  14. Zarei, I.; Ehsani, M.; Moghimehfar, F.; Aroufzad, S. Predicting Mountain Hikers’ Pro-Environmental Behavioral Intention: An Extension to the Theory of Planned Behavior. J. Park Recreat. Adm. 2021, 39, 70–90.
  15. Hu, H.; Zhang, J.; Chu, G.; Yang, J.; Yu, P. Factors influencing tourists’ litter management behavior in mountainous tourism areas in China. Waste Manag. 2018, 79, 273–286.
  16. She, S.; Tian, Y.; Lu, L.; Eimontaite, I.; Xie, T.; Sun, Y. An exploration of hiking risk perception: Dimensions and antecedent factors. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 2019, 16, 1986.
  17. Witte, A. “Chinese don’t walk?”–The emergence of domestic walking tourism on China’s Ancient Tea Horse Road. J. Leis. Res. 2021, 52, 424–445.
  18. Li, W.; Ge, X.; Liu, C. Hiking trails and tourism impact assessment in protected area: Jiuzhaigou Biosphere Reserve, China. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2005, 108, 279–293.
  19. Kuniyal, J.C. Solid waste management in the Himalayan trails and expedition summits. J. Sustain. Tour. 2005, 13, 391–410.
  20. Han, J.H.; Lee, M.J.; Hwang, Y.-S. Tourists’ ERB in response to climate change and tourist experiences in nature-based. Sustainability 2016, 8, 644.
  21. Han, H. Consumer behavior and environmental sustainability in tourism and hospitality: A review of theories, concepts, and latest research. J. Sustain. Tour. 2021, 29, 1021–1042.
  22. Gao, Y.; Ma, Y.; Bai, K.; Li, Y.; Liu, X. Which factors influence individual pro-environmental behavior in the tourism context: Rationality, affect, or morality? Asia Pac. J. Tour. Res. 2021, 26, 516–538.
  23. Chang, W.; Jin, H.Z.; Jing, J.C.; Huan, H.; Peng, Y. The influence of environmental background on tourists’ environmentally responsible behaviour. J. Environ. Manag. 2019, 231, 804–810.
  24. Zhang, Q.R.; Wang, Z.J. Study on the driving factors of tourists’ERB based on the theory of planned behavior-A case study of Beijing Bajia country park. J. Arid. Land Resour. Environ. 2018, 3, 203–207.
  25. Untaru, E.N.; Epuran, G.H.; Ispas, A.A. conceptual framework of consumers’pro-enviromental attitudes and behaviours in the tourism context. Econ. Sci. 2014, 7, 86–94.
  26. Rhodes, R.E.; Beauchamp, M.R.; Conner, M.; Bruijn, G.J.D.; Kaushal, N.; Latimer, C.A. Prediction of depot-based specialty recycling behavior using an extended theory of planned behavior. Environ. Behav. 2015, 47, 1001–1023.
  27. Han, H.; Hsu, L.; Sheu, C. Application of the theory of planned behavior to green hotel choice: Testing the effect of environmental friendly activities. Tour. Manag. 2010, 31, 325–334.
  28. Han, H.; Hyun, S.S. Drivers of customer decision to visit an environmentally responsible museum: Merging the theory of planned behavior and norm activation theory. J. Travel Tour. Mark. 2017, 34, 1–14.
  29. Xu, X.; Maki, A.; Chen, C.; Dong, B.; Day, J.K. Investigating willingness to save energy and communication about energy use in the American workplace with the attitude-behavior-context model. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2017, 32, 13–22.
  30. Li, X.; Jin, C.; Ge, X.; Wang, Y. Study of influencing factors of household waste reduction behaviors in Beijing. Int. J. Appl. Environ. Sci. 2013, 8, 615–624.
  31. Zhang, X.J.; Jin, H.R.; Lou, C.W. Norm Activation Model:An Effeective Theoretical Model for Predicting Citizens’ Pro-environmental Behaviors. J. Northeast. Nat. 2016, 18, 610–615.
  32. Han, H.S.; Myong, J.; JinSoo, H. Cruise travelers’ environmentally responsible decision-making: An integrative framework of goal-directed behavior and norm activation process. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2016, 56, 94–105.
  33. Onwezen, M.C.; Antonides, G.; Bartels, J. The norm activation model: An exploration of the functions of anticipated pride and guilt in pro-environmental behaviour. J. Econ. Psychol. 2013, 39, 141–153.
  34. Wu, J.; Wu, H.C.; Hsieh, C.-M.; Ramkissoon, H. Face consciousness, personal norms, and environmentally responsible behavior of Chinese tourists: Evidence from a lake tourism site. J. Hosp. Tour. Manag. 2022, 50, 148–158.
  35. Aguilar-Luzon, M.D.C.; Calvo-Salguero, A.; Salinas, J.M. Comparative study between the theory of planned behavior and the valueebeliefenorm model regarding the environment, on Spanish housewives’ recycling behavior. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 2012, 42, 2797–2833.
  36. Han, H.S. Travelers’ pro-environmental behavior in a green lodging context: Converging value-belief-norm theory and the theory of planned behavior. Tour. Manag. 2015, 47, 164–177.
  37. Bamberg, S.; Hunecke, M.; Blobaum, A. Social context, personal norms and the use of public transportation: Two field studies. J. Environ. Psychol. 2007, 27, 190–203.
  38. Ajzen, I. Action-Control: From Cognition to Behavior; Kuhl, J., Beckman, J., Eds.; Springer: Heidelberg/Berlin, Germany, 1985; pp. 11–12.
  39. Ajzen, I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. 1991, 50, 179–211.
  40. Schwartz, S.H. Normative influences on altruism. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 1977, 10, 221–279.
  41. He, X.; Zhan, W. How to activate moral norm to adopt electric vehicles in China? An empirical study based on extended norm activation theory. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 172, 3546–3556.
  42. Wu, J.; Font, X.; Jing, Y.L. Tourists’ Pro-environmental Behaviors:Moral Obligation or Disengagement? J. Travel. Res. 2020, 60, 1–14.
  43. Ping, L.; Zhou, B.; Chris, R. Hiking in China: A fuzzy model of satisfaction. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 2017, 22, 90–97.
  44. Hassan, H.; Hanim, N.; Azmi, M. Satisfaction in Tourism Operations. Int. J. Innov. Creat. Change 2019, 8, 18–35.
  45. Hunt, C.A.; Harbor, L.C. Pro-environmental tourism: Lessons from adventure, wellness and eco-tourism (AWE) in Costa Rica. J. Outdoor. Rec. Tour. 2019, 7, 100202.
  46. Lee, S.A.; Manthiou, A.; Chiang, L.; Tang, L.R. An assessment of value dimensions in hiking tourism: Pathways toward quality of life. Int. J. Tour. Res. 2017, 20, 236–246.
  47. Rhama, B. The meta-analysis of ecotourism in National Parks. Afr. J. Hosp. Tour. Leis. 2020, 9, 1–17.
  48. Torbidoni, E.I.F. Managing for recreational experience opportunities: The case of hikers in protected areas in Catalonia, Spain. Environ. Manag. 2011, 47, 482–496.
  49. Collins-Kreiner, N.; Kliot, N. Why do people hike? Hiking the Israel National Trail. Tijdschr. Econ. Soc. Geogr. 2017, 108, 669–687.
  50. Yi, H.L.; Tsung, H.L. How do recreation experiences affect visitors’ ERB? Evidence from recreationists visiting ancient trails in Taiwan. J. Sustain. Tour 2020, 28, 705–726.
  51. Ajzen, I. The theory of planned behaviour: Reactions and reflections. Psychol. Health 2011, 26, 1113–1127.
  52. Huan, H.; Jin, H.Z.; Chang, W.; Peng, Y.; Guang, C. What influences tourists’ intention to participate in the Zero Litter Initiative in mountainous tourism areas: A case study of Huangshan National Park, China. Sci. Total. Environ. 2019, 657, 1127–1137.
  53. Ajzen; Driver. Application of the Theory of Planned Behavior to Leisure Choice. J. Leisure Res. 1992, 24, 207–224.
  54. Chen, T. Developing an extended theory of planned behavior model to predict consumers’ intention to visit green hotels. Hosp. Manag. 2014, 36, 221–230.
  55. Tonglet, M.; Phillips, P.S.; Bates, M.P. Determining the drivers for householder pro-environmental behavior: Waste minimization compared to recycling. Resour. Conserv. Recy. 2004, 42, 27–48.
  56. Hsu, C.H.C.; Huang, S. An Extension of the Theory of Planned Behavior Model for Tourists. J. Hosp. Tour. Res. 2010, 36, 390–417.
  57. Zhang, X.J.; Geng, G.J. Ping Sun Determinants and implications of citizens’ environmental complaint in China: Integrating theory of planned behavior and norm activation model. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 166, 148–156.
  58. Steg, L.; Vlek, C. Encouraging pro-environmental behavior: An integrative review and research agenda. J. Environ. Psychol. 2009, 29, 309–317.
  59. Shi, H.; Fan, J.; Zhao, D. Predicting Household PM2.5-Reduction Behavior in Chinese Urban Areas: An Integrative Model of Theory of Planned Behavior and Norm Activation Theory. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 145, 64–73.
  60. Tam, K.-P.; Chan, H.-W. Generalized trust narrows the gap between environmental concern and pro-environmental behavior: Multilevel evidence. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2018, 48, 182–194.
  61. Dolnicar, S.; Knezevic Cvelbar, L.; Grün, B. A sharing-based approach to enticing tourists to behave more environmentally friendly. J. Travel Res. 2019, 58, 241–252.
  62. Judith, I.M.; De, G.; Linda, S. Morality and Prosocial Behavior: The Role of Awareness, Responsibility, and Norms in the Norm Activation Model. J. Soc. Psychol. 2009, 149, 425–449.
  63. Han, H.; Hwang, J.; Lee, M.J.; Kim, J. Word-of-mouth, buying, and sacrifice intentions for eco-cruises: Exploring the function of norm activation and value-attitude behavior. Tour. Manag. 2019, 70, 430–443.
  64. Wan, C.; Shen, G.Q.; Yu, A. The role of perceived effectiveness of policy measures in predicting recycling behaviour in Hong Kong. Resour. Conserv. Recy. 2014, 83, 141–151.
  65. Bandura, A. Social Cognitive Theory of Moral Thought and Action. In Handbook of Moral Behavior and Development; Kurtines, W.M., Gewirtz, J.L., Eds.; Psychology Press: New York, NY, USA, 1991; pp. 45–103.
  66. Bandura, A. Social Cognitive Theory in Cultural Context. Appl. Psychol. 2002, 51, 269–290.
  67. Dolnicar, S.; Leisch, F. An Investigation of Tourists’ Patterns of Obligation to Protect the Environment. J. Travel Res. 2008, 46, 381–391.
  68. Li, Q.C.; Wu, M.Y. Rationality or Morality? A Comparative Study of Pro-environmental Intention of Local and Nonlocal Visitors in Nature-Based Destinations. J. Destin. Mark. Manag. 2019, 11, 130–139.
  69. Wu, H.; Zhang, N. Willingness to Pay for Carbon Reduction Against Climate Change: A Social Survey in Beijing, China. Int. J. Sci. Res. Multidiscip. Stud. 2020, 6, 46–50.
  70. Zhang, Y.; Wang, Z.; Zhou, G. Antecedents of employee electricity saving behavior in organizations: An empirical study based on norm activation model. Energ. Policy 2013, 62, 1120–1127.
  71. Ellen, V.D.W.; Steg, L. One model to predict them all: Predicting energy behaviours with the norm activation model. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2015, 6, 8–14.
  72. Wittenberg, I.; Blöbaum, A.; Matthies, E. Environmental motivations for energy use in PV households: Proposal of a modified norm activation model for the specific context of PV households. J. Environ. Psychol. 2018, 55, 110–120.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
ScholarVision Creations
Feedback