Public environmental facilities: Hygiene factors for tourists' environmental behaviour

Environmental Science and Policy 106 (2020) 40–47

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Environmental Science and Policy journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/envsci

Public environmental facilities: Hygiene factors for tourists' environmental behaviour

T

Chang Wang, Jinhe Zhang*, Jinkun Sun, Min Chen, Jinhua Yang School of Geography and Ocean Science, Nanjing University, Nanjing, China

ARTICLE INFO

ABSTRACT

Keywords: Public environmental facilities Environmental disturbing behaviours Situational factors Hygiene factors Theory of planned behaviour

The environmental behaviour of tourists in tourism activities is the result of the interaction of "human" and "environment". Previous research on tourists' environmental behaviour has given more attention to tourists' "human" factors, including their individual psychological factors. However, the "environment" factors have not received much attention in the research, especially the influence of the situational factors of tourist destinations on tourists' environmental behaviour. Public environmental facilities (PEF) is an important part of tourist destinations and the main situational factor. Furthermore, previous studies on tourists' environmental behaviours have focused more on environmentally responsible behaviours (ERB), which often has a positive impact on the environment. However, environmentally disturbing behaviours (EDB), which often has a negative impact on the environment, has not been fully examined in previous studies. Based on the theory of planned behaviour (TPB), this research conducted a questionnaire survey to 534 tourists to explore the impact of PEF on tourists' EDB using the structural equation model and multi-group analysis method. The first finding was that tourists' attitudes (ATT) and subjective norms (SN) have significant negative effects on their environmentally disturbing behavioural intentions (EDBI). Perceived behavioural control (PBC) has a significant negative impact on EDBI and EDB. Additionally, there is a significant positive impact of EDBI on EDB. Second, PEF in the tourist destination plays a negative role in moderating the relationship between tourists' EDBI and EDB, that is, PEF are hygiene factors for tourists' environmental behaviour. Study results suggest management policies for public environmental facilities in tourist destinations and highlight the importance of tourists' psychological factors on longterm sustainability of tourist destinations.

1. Introduction Scientific problems are often closely related to the reality of life. A professor of our research team once told us a story from his personal experience. Once, an environmental expert took a bag of garbage and walked more than 30 km in the field with him but couldn't find any garbage cans. In the expert's attempt to find a garbage can, the expert became too tired, and could merely throw the garbage to the roadside. It can be seen from this story that PEF such as garbage cans may belong to the hygiene factors in the two-factor theory (motivation-hygiene theory) (Lundberg et al., 2009), and if this condition is not satisfied, it can easily lead to negative behaviours. The lack of PEF may lead to an increase in EDB, even among environmental experts who are conscious of engaging in environmentally responsible behaviours (ERB). In tourism activities, the PEF of tourist destinations are equally important for ensuring tourists' ERB and reducing their EDB. The

⁎

problem of environmental pollution and ecological damage in tourist destinations has become increasingly apparent, which has become a constraint to sustainable tourism (Cheng and Zhang, 2017). There are many reasons for the environmental and ecological problems of tourist destinations. Among tourism supply side, such as tourism enterprises, are often the focus of scholars' attention and research. In recent years, research on the demand side of tourism, that is, the impact of tourists' EDB on the environment and ecology of tourist destinations, has been given increasing attention, becoming a hot spot in research on tourism management and environmental management (Bramwell, 2010). There is an old saying in China that "the action is determined by the heart and the heart is elicited by the environment", which profoundly explains the inseparability of the relationship between human and the environment, and the behaviour of human beings will be affected by the surrounding environment (Wang et al., 2018). Arousal theory proposes that various stimuli in the environment will cause the individual's physiological autonomic response, which follows the "environment-

Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (J. Zhang).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2020.01.009 Received 20 June 2019; Received in revised form 18 January 2020; Accepted 18 January 2020 1462-9011/ © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Environmental Science and Policy 106 (2020) 40–47

C. Wang, et al.

emotion-behaviour" response mode (Harrison, 2015; Reese and Jacob, 2015). Environmental stimuli cause changes in the individual's emotions. Environmental factors that are situational factors of place where behaviours happen, are interventional factors in human behaviour. Therefore, the environmental factors of the tourist destination will have an impact on the environmental behaviour of the tourists. The rapid development of tourism industry brings about many damaging ecological and environmental effects to tourist destinations, which not only affect the healthy development of tourist destinations but also affect the tourism experience (Miller et al., 2015). In the past, research on tourists focused more on tourists' positive environmental behaviours, such as ERB (Han, 2015; Wang et al., 2019, 2018), but less on their negative depreciative behaviours, such as EDB. EDB indicate that the tourists' awareness of their responsibility to protect the environment is weak and mainly refers to tourist behaviours that have negatively affected the tourism environment (Bramwell, 2010; Manning and Anderson, 2012). These activities include littering, spitting, picking flowers and plants, disturbing small animals, and trampling on the lawn. Previous studies of the environmental behaviour of tourists have mostly focused on the characteristics of tourists. These characteristics are as follows: ATT, SN, PBC and environmental behavioural intentions (EBI) with regard to TPB (Rhodes et al., 2015); the resulting consciousness, responsibility attribution and individual norms with regard to norm-activation theory (Onwezen et al., 2013); environmental values, ecological world outlook, awareness of consequence and personal norms related to environmental behaviour with regard to VBN (AguilarLuzón et al., 2012). These studies ignore the influence of tourist destinations on tourists' environmental behaviour. Situational factor refers to things related to an individual' perception process (Barr, 2002). Situational factors that influence consumer behaviour can be divided into marketing factors (various discount items, coupons for various shopping malls, etc.), time factors (purchased goods that are urgently needed, special time when purchasing, limited time for consuming, etc.), material factors (weather conditions during consumption, surroundings in the place of consumption, geographical location of the place of consumption, etc.) and interaction factors (service staff or a friend's guidance, etc.) (Tanner and Wölfing Kast, 2003). Situational factors attracted more and more attention in research on tourism. Situational tourism, situational planning, situational consumption, and situational marketing have achieved many results (Deacon and Harris, 2013; Sanzblas et al., 2017). However, the study of these situational factors in the context of the tourism environment is relatively weak (Imran et al., 2014). The situational factors of tourist destinations can be divided into five categories: behaviour of sanitation workers, behavioural constraints of accompanying companions, environmental regulations and environmental explanations, PEF, and environmental quality (Hall et al., 2010; Lackey, 2003; Stack et al., 2011; Taff et al., 2014). Among these factors, PEF are an important type of situational factor in tourist destinations. The PEF in this paper mainly refer to garbage bins, fences for flowers and plants, main roads. For example, if the garbage bins are not properly arranged, the behaviour of tourists throwing garbage may increase. Therefore, this paper mainly answer the following question: Are PEF in tourist destinations hygiene factors for tourists' environmental behaviour? Situational factors can moderate the relationship between an individual' environmental behavioural intention and environmental behaviour (Wang et al., 2018). Therefore, PEF are an important situational factor for tourist destinations and can moderate the relationship between tourists' EDBI and their EDB. Thus, the question of whether the PEF in tourist destinations are hygiene factors for tourists' environmental behaviours has evolved into the following question: "Does this moderating role truly exist? If so, is the moderating role negative?" This paper introduces the situational factors of tourist destinations—PEF—into the EDB of tourists and uses TPB to construct

research model to test the moderating role of PEF in the relationship between EDBI and EDB of tourists. 2. Fundamental theory and model construction 2.1. Variables of TPB The TPB is a cognitive model that focuses on interpreting and predicting human behaviour (Miller, 2017). TPB indicates individual behaviour is determined by behavioural intentions and behavioural control concepts, while behavioural intentions are influenced by PBC, SN and ATT. Many studies applied the TPB model to environmental behaviour, ecological behaviour, low carbon tourism intentions, green hotel consumption choices, and other topics and have confirmed that the TPB model has high explanatory power and predictive effectiveness in the field of environmental behaviour (Deng et al., 2016; Greaves et al., 2013; Han, 2015; Kuo and Dai, 2015). Therefore, the following hypotheses are made: H1: Tourists' ATT have a negative impact on their EDBI. H2: Tourists' SN have a negative impact on their EDBI. H3: Tourists' PBC has a negative impact on their EDBI. H4: Tourists' PBC has a negative impact on their EDB. H5: Tourists' EDBI has a positive impact on their EDB. 2.2. Moderating role of PEF The material environment formed by the extreme elements of a particular space provides a certain place for certain people to support certain behaviour patterns, and the specific behaviour of the place and the individual constitute a behaviour setting (Wicker, 1979). The environmental conditions outside the site will have a certain stimulating effect on the individual's psychology and behaviour. PEF in tourist destinations are an external environmental stimulating factor for tourists in specific scenic spots. The perception of the level of restraint by tourists will have an impact on environmental behaviour. Generally, at low-level constraints, tourists will give up their personal environmental protection efforts (Perkins et al., 1988), which will lead to unfriendly environmental behaviours. Tourists' perception of high-level constraints will prompt them to examine the original environmental behaviours and constrain them. Relevant scholars have confirmed this phenomenon, one showed that the availability of facilities (whether the facilities exist and how much, whether the garbage is transported in time, the size of the storage space), the complexity of the facility (whether the implementation is simple, the number and types of classified collection, the differences between multi-process and singleprocess facilities, etc.) will affect the individual's environmental behaviour (Onokala et al., 2018). One confirmed that the system design (whether it is reasonable to provide recycling bins and recycling services, etc.), facility convenience (including perceived convenience), and roadside or recycling station (distance from recycling devices, recycling cycle or business hours, facility availability, facility complexity, etc.) are key factors affecting individual environmental behaviour (Takahashi and Selfa, 2014). Combined with the specific content of this study, this paper proposes that the PEF of tourist destinations refer to the various types of infrastructure used to protect the environment. For example, PEF such as garbage bins and flower fences in tourist destinations are fully and reasonably constructed, and it is more convenient for tourists to implement ERB. At present, very little empirical research has been conducted on the influence of PEF in tourist destinations with respect to tourists' EDB, and this paper fills this gap in the literature. Therefore, the following hypothesis is made: H6: PEF in tourist destinations have a negative moderating role in the relationship between tourists' EDBI and EDB; that is, the relationship is weaker when the binding effect of PEF are stronger and PEF are hygiene factors for tourists' environmental behaviour. 41

Environmental Science and Policy 106 (2020) 40–47

C. Wang, et al.

et al., 2013). HNP not only has outstanding resource advantages but has also achieved remarkable results in its tourism management (NetEaseNews, 2010). The EDB of tourists is destroying the ecological environment of HNP (GuangMingNews, 2018). Therefore, it is important and necessary to protect the ecological environment of HNP from the activities of tourists and to encourage and guide tourists to reduce their EDB and implement ERB. 3.2. Survey design The author designed a questionnaire to research the predicting factors of tourists' PEB. The specific items are listed in Table 1. EDB is measured by the Likert 5-point method (1-never; 2-very few; 3-occasional; 4-often; 5-always). ATT, PBC, SN, EDBI and PEF are also rated using the Likert 5-point method (1-strongly disagree; 2-disagree; 3-general; 4-agree; 5-strongly agree).

Fig. 1. EDB research model.

2.3. Model building Based on the above assumptions, the research model takes the tourists' EDB as the final investigation variable, including four pre-drive variables, such as ATT, SN, PBC, and EDBI, as well as the situational factor variable of the PEF in the tourist destination (Fig. 1).

3.3. Data collection A pilot study for item analysis was conducted between April 21th and April 22th, 2017 in Sun Yat-sen Mausoleum in Nanjing city, China. A total of 113 valid responses were collected. The results suggested deletion of the item " People who are important to me want me to protect the environment of the national park" and " I have time, money and opportunities to do something to protect the environment of the national park" since they were poor in communalities (< 0.25), factor loading (< 0.50), and corrected item-total correlation (< 0.40) (Churchill, 1979). The formal investigation was conducted in HNP in May 11th to May 14th, 2017 by a convenience sampling method. The survey team photographed the PEF in HNP (Fig. 4) and distributed 600 questionnaires, 590 questionnaires were returned, and questionnaires

3. Data sources and research methods 3.1. Overview of research area Huangshan National Park (HNP) is located in Huangshan City in the southern part of Anhui Province, China (Fig. 2). Its total area is 1200 km2, the core area is 160.6 km2, and the ground span is 118°01′∼118°17′E, 30°01′∼30°18′N (Fig. 3) (Hu et al., 2018). HNP is China's first batch of key scenic spots, which are components of the world's cultural and natural heritage known as world geoparks (Yan

Fig. 2. Location map of HNP. 42

Environmental Science and Policy 106 (2020) 40–47

C. Wang, et al.

Fig. 3. Areal map of HNP.

Table 1 Questionnaire. Observation variable

Item

Reference

ATT 1ATT 2ATT 3ATT 4ATT SN 1SN 2SN 3SN PBC 1PBC 2PBC 3PBC EDBI 1EDBI 2EDBI 3EDBI EDB 1EDB 2EDB 3EDB PEF 1PEF 2PEF

Protecting the environment of a national park is, wise. a good thing. worthwhile. beneficial.

(Ajzen, 1991; Wang et al., 2019, 2018)

3PEF

People who are important to me think I should protect the environment of the national park. People whose opinions I respect hope that I can protect the environment of the national park. People I am familiar with will participate in activities to protect the environment of the national park. Let me do something to protect the environment of the national park, I am confident that I can do it. it all depends on me. it is easy. Here, I would like to, litter. disturb plants and small animals in the national park. walk on the path and step on the lawn. Here, I used to, litter. disturb plants and small animals in the national park. walk on the path and step on the lawn. If the garbage cans in the national park are set up properly, I will not litter. If the main roads construction in the national park are fully reasonable, I will not walk on the path and step on the lawn. If the plants and small animals in the national park are protected by fences, I will not disturb them.

43

Environmental Science and Policy 106 (2020) 40–47

C. Wang, et al.

Fig. 4. PEF in HNP.

with an excessive number of incomplete items were removed (for questionnaires with fewer unanswered items, the incomplete items were replaced by the mean substitution method). Ultimately, 534 valid questionnaires were obtained. The demographic characteristics of the sample is quite similar to Qian et al. (2014) investigation in August 2013, with certain attributed to tourism seasonal differences. Data were entered using SPSS22.0 statistical software. For the data entry method, one person inputted data, another person checked the data, and a third person randomly checked to ensure accuracy of the data entry.

4.2. CFA The measurement model was tested using CFA combined with maximum likelihood estimation. The study used NFI, χ2/df, IFI, CFI, SRMR, RMSEA and PGFI to verify the fit of the model. In general, the following characteristics indicate a standard fit of the measurement model: NFI and CFI are greater than 0.9, χ2/df is between 1–3, PGFI＞0.5, SRMR＜0.05, RMSEA＜0.08 (Chin and Todd, 1995). The results showed that the measurement model fit well with the data (NFI = 0.956, χ2/df = 2.744, IFI = 0.973, CFI = 0.973, SRMR = 0.031, RMSEA = 0.052, PGFI = 0.679). As shown in Table 3, the combined reliability (CR) of the 6 latent variables ranged from 0.824 to 0.935, all reaching a minimum of 0.7. Therefore, the internal consistency of the integrated model was high (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). Second, the normalized factor load (NFL) of 19 observed variables in the comprehensive model was between 0.702 and 0.959, which is consistent with the criterion being greater than 0.5, indicating that each observed variable has strong explanatory ability for latent variables (Tracey et al., 1999). The average variance extraction (AVE) of all latent variables was between 0.611 and 0.827, reaching a minimum of 0.5, indicating that all observed variables are interpreted by their latent variables by more than the amount of variation explained by their error. As shown in Table 4, the AVE square root of all constructs was greater than the correlation coefficient with the other constructs, indicating that the discriminant validity between variables was good (Fornell and Larcker, 1981).

3.4. Analytical method The SEM statistical method was used to test the hypothetical relationship between the proposed comprehensive model and its variables. In the selection of parameter estimation methods, SEM was performed by the maximum likelihood method (ML). Using the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) of AMOS21.0, the reliability and validity of the integrated model were measured, and then the overall fit of the model was evaluated. Ultimately, MGA was used to compare the binding effect of the high-level group and the low-level group of PEF to test the relevant moderating role of PEF. According to the average of the three items of PEF, the scores were ranked from high to low. The first 27 % of the scores were classified into the high-level group, and the last 27 % were classified into the low-level group, which is the 27 % principle (Ross and Weitzman, 1964).

4.3. SEM

4. Results

The fit indices of the proposed TPB model are as follows: NFI = 0.967, χ2/df = 2.290, IFI = 0.981, CFI = 0.981, SRMR = 0.039, RMSEA = 0.049 and PGFI = 0.638. These indices show that the model fit well. The standardized parameter output of the model is shown in Fig. 5.

4.1. Sample descriptive statistical analysis The demographic characteristics of the 534 tourists from HNP in this survey are shown in Table 2. 44

Environmental Science and Policy 106 (2020) 40–47

C. Wang, et al.

Table 2 Sample demographic characteristics.

Table 4 Discrimination validity test.

Characteristics

Classification

Number

Percentage (%)

Latent variable

ATT

SN

PBC

EDBI

EDB

PEF

Gender

Male Female ≤14 15-24 25-44 45-64 ≥65 Primary school and below Junior middle school High school/Secondary school College Undergraduate Master's degree and above Government officials Company staff Business personnel Waiters/Salesmen Mechanics/Workers Soldiers Students Professional and technical personnel Retirees Others ≤3000 3001-5000 5001-7000 7001-9000 ≥9001 Married In love Single Living in Anhui Province Living outside Anhui Province

284 250 1 172 299 56 6 2 15 60 116 279 62

53.2 46.8 0.2 32.2 56.0 10.5 1.1 0.4 2.8 11.2 21.7 52.2 11.6

ATT SN PBC EDBI EDB PEF

0.823 0.466 0.564 0.666 0.434 0.085

0.909 0.361 0.483 0.363 0.061

0.782 0.396 0.295 0.072

0.850 0.493 0.067

0.858 0.075

0.888

26 203 27 26 13 2 110 66 10 51

4.9 38.0 5.1 4.9 2.4 0.4 20.6 12.4 1.9 9.6

135 131 97 70 101 253 89 192 78 456

25.3 24.5 18.2 13.1 18.9 47.4 16.7 36.0 14.6 85.4

Age

Education level

Occupation

Monthly income (RMB)

Marital status Permanent residence

Note: The diagonal of the matrix is the square root of the AVE, and the matrix of the correlation coefficients fall below the diagonal.

Fig. 5. Standardized output of TPB model. Table 5 Estimation of path coefficient of tourist EDB model.

ATT 1ATT 2ATT 3ATT 4ATT SN 1SN 2SN 3SN PBC 1PBC 2PBC 3PBC EDBI 1EDBI 2EDBI 3EDBI EDB 1EDB 2EDB 3EDB PEF 1PEF 2PEF 3PEF

Mean 4.80 4.79 4.83 4.77 4.79 4.76 4.74 4.61 4.57 4.63 4.84 4.83 4.71 4.73 4.74 4.71 4.44 4.41 4.33

Normalized path coefficient

SE

t

Hypotheses

H1：ATT→EDBI H2：SN→EDBI H3：PBC→EDBI H4：PBC→EDB H5：REBI→EDB

−0.417 −0.106 −0.187 −0.168 0.224

0.050 0.034 0.040 0.091 0.154

5.822*** 2.085* 2.874** 2.989*** 3.893***

Affirmed Affirmed Affirmed Affirmed Affirmed

Note: *** indicates p＜0.001; ** indicates p＜0.01; * indicates p＜0.05.

Table 3 Reliability and convergent validity test. Variable

Relationship

CR

AVE

0.893

0.677

0.935

0.827

0.824

0.611

0.885

0.723

0.893

0.737

0.917

0.788

SD

NFL

0.45 0.48 0.41 0.47

0.836 0.908 0.822 0.714

0.49 0.52 0.56

0.939 0.899 0.889

0.69 0.70 0.64

0.719 0.880 0.736

0.37 0.41 0.47

0.899 0.932 0.702

0.54 0.53 0.58

0.874 0.899 0.799

0.98 0.99 1.12

0.876 0.959 0.822

normalized path coefficients (NPC) of ATT, SN, and PBC to EDBI are -0.417, -0.16, and -0.187, respectively. The NPC of PBC and EDBI to EDB are -0.168 and 0.224, respectively; all of these coefficients were significant. Therefore, the hypothesised relationships labelled 1–5 were affirmed: ATT of tourists negatively affects their EDBI; SN negatively affect EDBI; PBC negatively affects EDBI and EDB; and EDBI positively affect EDB. 4.4. MGA: the test of the moderating role of PEF According to the 27 % principle, the binding effect of PEF is divided into two groups. Table 6 is the model fitness index of the two groups of PEF. Based on evaluation criteria of the model fitting index, the model proposed in this paper is suitable for the two groups. The study tests whether PEF moderate the relevant paths in the structural model, therefore only the differences between the models that limit the structural weights and the models that limit the measurement weights are considered. The results are as follows: Δχ2 = 23.565, Δdf = 5, p < 0.01; these results indicate that the model is significantly different after the weight of the structure is limited. To determine whether there was a significant difference between the high and low levels of the EDBI-EDB path, we tested the critical Table 6 Low and high level groups goodness-of-fit test.

Table 5 shows the test results of the hypothetical model presented in this paper. It is assumed that the significance test standard is that the absolute value of the value of t is greater than 1.96, that is, p < 0.05. The 45

Groups

NFI

χ2/df

IFI

CFI

PGFI

SRMR

RMSEA

Low High

0.951 0.934

2.732 3.580

0.968 0.951

0.968 0.951

0.631 0.637

0.042 0.052

0.060 0.073

Environmental Science and Policy 106 (2020) 40–47

C. Wang, et al.

ratio difference between the two groups of paths. The results showed an absolute value of 5.09 (a threshold greater than 1.96), indicating a significance level at 0.05. That is, PEF play a moderating role in the relationship between tourists' EDBI and EDB. In addition, the NPC of the high-level group (0.124) is smaller than the NPC of the low-level group (0.433). Therefore, assumption 6 is supported. That is, PEF in tourist destinations negatively moderate the relationship between tourists' EDBI and their EDB; in other words, this path is weaker when the binding effect of PEF is stronger and PEF are hygiene factors for tourists' environmental behaviour.

5.2. Future research directions This study explores the impact of specific situational factors, that is, PEF, on tourists' EDB. Subsequent research can include other situational factors in tourist destinations, such as sanitation workers' efforts of ERB, into the analysis model to explore the impact of these situational factors on the environmental behaviour of tourists. In this paper, three types of PEF, namely, garbage cans, roads and fences, are included in the same system for systematic research. In the future, the research perspective can be focused on a specific category of PEF to explore different types of facilities for tourism to clarify the differences and linkages of its impact mechanisms. This paper uses HNP, a natural resource-based tourist destination, as a case study. In the future, this examination can be extended to other cases, such as coastal tourist areas and museums, for the purposes of comparing and studying differences in their PEF and exploring their impact on tourists' environmental behaviour.

5. Discussion and conclusion 5.1. Revelation and countermeasures Based on the above findings, the following countermeasures are proposed. First, there is a need to focus on ATT and effectively strengthen the propaganda and education of civilized tourism. Relevant institutions need to strengthen the educational efforts of ERB for tourists so that tourists can implemente ERB, thus effectively guiding them to implement such behaviours consciously. Second, focusing on SN, we should work together to create a good social atmosphere to improve tourists' quality of civilized tourism. Individuals or organizations that are closely related to us should create a custom of civilized tourism to stimulate tourists to abide by the standards of ERB. Third, there is a need to focus on PBC, which would lead to continuously reduced costs associated with tourists engaging in civilized tourism behaviour. Tourist destinations should enhance tourists' control over their engagement in civilized tourism behaviour by formulating incentive measures and improving the infrastructure of tourist destinations. PEF are an important situational factor in tourist destinations. In this study, PEF, were incorporated into the environmental behaviour research of tourists. The SEM-MGA method was used to test the moderating role of PEF in the relationship between EDBI and EDB of tourists. Through empirical analysis, this study proposes that the improvement of the conditions of PEF can promote the reduction or even the eradication of EDB. The following countermeasures and suggestions are from the perspective of PEF. First, the conditions of PEF need to be improved to strengthen the guiding role for tourists. The layout and detailed designs of the signboards and garbage cans in tourist destinations should be scientific and reasonable. Through the improvement of PEF, the ERB of tourists is guaranteed so that tourists can more clearly understand and value their role in ERB to form a virtuous circle. In light of the current low level of attention that tourists give to their ERB, tourists who do ERB can be directly rewarded to a certain extent, and EDB can be punished (Mair and Bergin-Seers, 2010). For examples, through the improvement of PEF and the implementation of reward and punishment measures for environmental behaviour, the environmental management of national parks in Mexico and Norway had made great progress (Carlos et al., 2018; Veisten et al., 2015). Second, strengthen the publicity of PEF. The relevant administrative departments of tourist destinations may adopt actions to enhance the perception the PEF, such as AR, MR, and VR to promote the spontaneous implementation of ERB to prevent EDB among tourists. Third, the management departments of tourist destinations should pay more attention to improving the construction and resettlement of PEF. For example, road construction should be reasonable, the garbage cans should be placed in locations that are easy for tourists to find and categorize, the number of garbage cans and the fences for small animals and plants should be adequate. Furthermore, in the aspect of sanitary environment, the disposal of garbage bins should be coordinated with the environment, with reasonable layout and sufficient quantity, and the classified garbage bins made of environmental protection materials should be adopted; the toilets should be sufficient in quantity, reasonable in layout, effective in management; the construction of toilets in tourist attractions and restaurants should conform to the national standards.

5.3. Conclusions The research introduces the situational factors of tourist destinations, that is, PEF, into the study of EDB of tourists and explores the impact of situational factors on tourists' EDB by using TPB. Through an empirical analysis, this paper concludes that the factors influencing the EDB of tourists are of two types, individual psychological factors of tourists and environmental factors of the tourist site. Tourists' individual psychological factors such as ATT and SN have a significant negative impact on their EDBI. PBC has a significant negative impact on their EDBI and EDB. EDBI have a significant positive impact on EDB. Environmental factors that are situational factors— PEF in tourist destinations negatively moderate the relationship between tourists' EDBI and their EDB, that is, PEF are hygiene factors for tourists' environmental behaviour. On the one hand, the results of this study can effectively guide tourists to consciously engage in ERB and avoid EDB. On the other hand, from the management perspective of tourist destinations, the findings of this study can facilitate the formulation of effective tourism environmental policies for relevant management departments of tourist destinations and the implementation of effective environmental management procedures to provide a basis for effectively solving environmental problems and promoting the sustainable development of tourist destinations and provide indicative significance for human behaviour research that focus on both individual psychological factors of human and situational factors of the place where individual behaviour executed. Funding This research was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Number: 41771147) and Social Science Foundation of Jiangsu Province (Grant Number: 19GLC012). CRediT authorship contribution statement Chang Wang: Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation, Formal analysis, Visualization, Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing, Data curation, Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing original draft, Writing - review & editing, Supervision, Project administration, Funding acquisition. Jinhe Zhang: . Jinkun Sun: Investigation. Min Chen: Investigation. Jinhua Yang: Investigation. Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. 46

C. Wang, et al.

Environmental Science and Policy 106 (2020) 40–47

References

Manning, R., Anderson, L.E., 2012. Managing Outdoor Recreation: Case Studies in the National Parks. CABI, UK. Miller, Z.D., 2017. The enduring use of the theory of planned behavior. Hum. Dimens. Wildl. 22, 583–590. Miller, D., Merrilees, B., Coghlan, A., 2015. Sustainable urban tourism: understanding and developing visitor pro-environmental behaviours. J. Sustain. Tour. 23, 26–46. NetEaseNews, 2010. Huangshan National Park Won the World Tourist Destination Management Award. (accessed 6 January 2019). https://www.news.163.com/10/ 0529/15/67S3JFGA000146BD.html/. Onokala, U., Banwo, A.O., Okeowo, F.O., 2018. Predictors of pro-environmental behavior: a comparison of university students in the United States and China. J. Manage. Sustainability. 8, 127–136. Onwezen, M.C., Antonides, G., Bartels, J., 2013. The norm activation model: an exploration of the functions of anticipated pride and guilt in pro-environmental behaviour. J. Econ. Psychol. 39, 141–153. Perkins, D.V., Thomas, F.B., Perry, J.C., Nielsen, K.P., 1988. Behavior setting theory and community psychology: an analysis and critique. J. Community Psychol. 16, 355–372. Qian, Y., Li, D., Xu, B., Liu, Y., 2014. Tourist satisfaction index model research of tourism public service based on sem——based on mount huang (in Chinese with English abstract). Journal of Beijing International Studies University 1, 63–70. Reese, G., Jacob, L., 2015. Principles of environmental justice and pro-environmental action: a two-step process model of moral anger and responsibility to act. Environ. Sci. Policy 51, 88–94. Rhodes, R.E., Beauchamp, M.R., Conner, M., Bruijn, G.J.D., Kaushal, N., Latimer-Cheung, A., 2015. Prediction of depot-based specialty recycling behavior using an extended theory of planned behavior. Environ. Behav. 47, 1001–1023. Ross, J., Weitzman, R.A., 1964. The twenty-seven percent rule. Ann. Math. Stat. 35, 214–221. Sanzblas, S., Carvajaltrujillo, E., Buzova, D., 2017. The moderating effect of personal and situational characteristics in behavioural factors affecting ports of call. Curr. Issues Tour. 1, 1–9. Stack, D.W., Newman, P., Manning, R.E., Fristrup, K.M., 2011. Reducing visitor noise levels at Muir Woods National Monument using experimental management. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 129, 1375–1380. Taff, D., Newman, P., Lawson, S.R., Bright, A., Marin, L., Gibson, A., Archie, T., 2014. The role of messaging on acceptability of military aircraft sounds in Sequoia National Park. Appl. Acoust. 84, 122–128. Takahashi, B., Selfa, T., 2014. Predictors of pro-environmental behavior in rural american communities. Environ. Behav. 47, 673–675. Tanner, C., Wölfing Kast, S., 2003. Promoting sustainable consumption: determinants of green purchases by swiss consumers. Psychol. Mark. 20, 883–902. Tracey, M., Vonderembse, M.A., Lim, J.S., 1999. Manufacturing technology and strategy formulation: keys to enhancing competitiveness and improving performance. J. Oper. Manag. 17, 411–428. Veisten, K., Haukeland, J.V., Baardsen, S., DegnesØdemark, H., Grue, B., 2015. Tourist segments for new facilities in national park areas: profiling tourists in norway based on psychographics and demographics. J. Hosp. Market. Manag. 24, 486–510. Wang, C., Zhang, J.H., Yu, P., Hu, H., 2018. The theory of planned behavior as a model for understanding tourists’ responsible environmental behaviors: The moderating role of environmental interpretations. J. Clean. Prod. 194, 425–434. Wang, C., Zhang, J.H., Cao, J.J., Hu, H., Yu, P., 2019. The influence of environmental background on tourists’ environmentally responsible behaviour. J. Environ. Manage. 231, 804–810. Wicker, A.W., 1979. Ecological psychology: Some recent and prospective developments. Am. Psychol. 34, 755–765. Yan, P., Wu, X., Yang, R., Li, X., Yang, B., 2013. DNA-based species identification for faecal samples: an application on the mammalian survey in mountain huangshan scenic spot. Afr. J. Biotechnol. 10, 12134–12141.

Aguilar-Luzón, M.D.C., Calvo-Salguero, A., Salinas, J.M., 2012. Comparative study between the theory of planned behavior and the value–belief–norm model regarding the environment, on spanish housewives’ recycling behavior. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 42, 2797–2833. Ajzen, I., 1991. The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 50, 179–211. Barr, S., 2002. Household waste in social perspective. Ashgate Publishing Limited, Burlington, USA. Bramwell, B., 2010. Tourism development and the environment: beyond sustainability? Ann. Touris. Res. 37, 1194–1196. Carlos, E.P., Nuno, S., Pech, D., 2018. A dataset on the species composition of amphipods (crustacea) in a mexican marine national park: alacranes reef, yucatan. Biodiver. Data. J. 6 e22622. Cheng, W., Zhang, Y., 2017. Research on the impact of tourism development on regional ecological environment and countermeasure based on big data. Bragantia 55, 464–470. Chin, W.W., Todd, P.A., 1995. On the use, usefulness, and ease of use of structural equation modeling in MIS research: a note of caution. MIS Q. 19, 237–246. Churchill, J.G., 1979. A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs. J. Mark. Res. 16, 64–73. Deacon, J.H., Harris, J., 2013. Contextual marketing. J. Res. Mark. Entrepreneurship. 13, 146–160. Deng, J., Sun, P., Zhao, F., Han, X., Yang, G., Feng, Y., 2016. Analysis of the ecological conservation behavior of farmers in payment for ecosystem service programs in ecoenvironmentally fragile areas using social psychology models. Sci. Total Environ. 550, 382–390. Fornell, C., Larcker, D.F., 1981. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Mark. Res. 18, 39–50. Greaves, M., Zibarras, L.D., Stride, C., 2013. Using the theory of planned behavior to explore environmental behavioral intentions in the workplace. J. Environ. Psychol. 34, 109–120. GuangMingNews, 2018. Tourists’ Irresponsible Environmental Behaviors Are Damaging the Environment of Huangshan National Park. (accessed 6 January 2019). pic.gmw. cn/channelplay/6200/6284998/0/0.html/. Hall, T.E., Ham, S.H., Lackey, B.K., 2010. Comparative evaluation of the attention capture and holding power of novel signs aimed at park visitors. J. Interpretation. Res. 15, 15–36. Han, H.S., 2015. Travelers’ pro-environmental behavior in a green lodging context: converging value-belief-norm theory and the theory of planned behavior. Tourism Manage. 47, 164–177. Harrison, D.W., 2015. Arousal Theory: Brain Asymmetry and Neural Systems. Springer International Publishing, Basel, Switzerland. Hu, H., Zhang, J.H., Chu, G., Yang, J.H., Yu, P., 2018. Factors influencing tourists’ litter management behavior in mountainous tourism areas in China. Waste Manage. 79, 273–286. Imran, S., Alam, K., Beaumont, N., 2014. Environmental orientations and environmental behaviour: perceptions of protected area tourism stakeholders. Tourism Manage. 40, 290–299. Kuo, N.W., Dai, Y.Y., 2015. Predicting low-carbon travel behavior: a modified theory of planned behavior model from taiwan. Brain Res. 48, 147–156. Lackey, B.K., 2003. Contextual analysis of interpretation focused on human-black bear conflicts in Yosemite National Park. Appl. Environ. Educ. Commun. Int. J. 2, 11–21. Lundberg, C., Gudmundson, A., Andersson, T.D., 2009. Herzberg’s two-factor theory of work motivation tested empirically on seasonal workers in hospitality and tourism. Tourism Manage. 30, 890–899. Mair, J., Bergin-Seers, S., 2010. The effect of interventions on the environmental behaviour of australian motel guests. Touris. Hospitality. Res. 10, 255–268.

47