Threat-Induced Sustainability: How Covid-19 has Affected Sustainable Behavioral Intention and Sustainable Hotel Brand Choice

Abstract

The purpose of this research was to explore the influence of the COVID-19 pandemic on consumers’ sustainable consumption behavior. It investigated whether the perceived threat of COVID-19 increased their intention to choose a sustainable hotel brand option. It examined whether environmental concern and the perceived value of patronizing a sustainable business mediated the relationship between the perceived threat of COVID-19 and sustainable behavioral intention. Five experimental studies indicated that the pandemic contributed to elevating sustainable behavioral intention. Environmental concern and the perceived value of patronizing a sustainable business played a mediating role in the relationship between the perceived threat of COVID-19 and sustainable behavioral intention. Another important outcome was that customers showed a preference for choosing a sustainable hotel brand over a non-sustainable brand, even when the price was higher.

Keywords

COVID-19 behavioral intention choice environmental concern sustainability threat

Highlights

The COVID-19 pandemic affects consumers’ sustainable consumption behavior.

The COVID-19 pandemic affects consumers’ choice on a sustainable hotel brand option.

Amidst the pandemic, customers demonstrate preference for selecting a sustainable hotel brand, even when the price is higher.

Introduction

Sustainable consumption refers to the use of goods and services that respond to basic needs and create a better quality of life while minimizing the use of natural resources, toxic materials, and emissions of waste and pollutants, so as not to jeopardize the needs of future generations (Hall, 2019; Han, 2021; Jones & Comfort, 2020). In the hospitality setting, sustainable consumption includes consumer actions and behaviors that reduce environmental harm (e.g., reduction of litter production by guests in a hotel) or energy-saving behaviors (e.g., practices in a hotel that conserve water or electricity; Bridges & Wilhelm, 2008; Han, 2020). Previous studies have found that individual values can influence how people behave with regard to sustainable consumption in the hospitality industry (e.g., Cai et al., 2021; de Jong & Varley, 2018; Dolnicar et al., 2017; Goldstein et al., 2008; Han & Kim, 2010; Juvan & Dolnicar, 2016; Kim & Hall, 2020). Further, some studies found a willingness to pay more when purchasing sustainable products (Boronat-Navarro & Perez-Aranda, 2020; Kang et al., 2012).

However, with regard to the COVID-19 pandemic, there are research gaps regarding its impacts on customers’ attitudes toward sustainable products or brands. First, the pandemic has propelled a dramatic paradigm shift in hospitality management. For example, the Hilton 2021 ESG Report (2022), developed in the middle of the COVID-19 pandemic, takes an initiative on a sustainable hotel project by reducing greenhouse gas emissions and minimizing electricity, water, paper, and food waste, harnessing renewable energy, seeking energy efficiency, and facilitating responsible supply chains. Along with these industrial efforts to create sustainable hospitality businesses, customers during the pandemic have shown preferences for digital devices, contactless service, hygienic service, and eco-friendly products, and have displayed a keen interest in the importance of socially responsible ethics and harmony between humans and the environment (Jiang & Wen, 2020; Kim et al., 2021; Lew et al., 2020; Severo et al., 2021; Sigala, 2020). The newly emerging industrial practices following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic have supported consumers’ enthusiasm for sustainable consumption in hospitality settings. However, there have been limited efforts to empirically evaluate the new trends, or to identify a relationship between the psychological threat posed by COVID-19 and preferences for sustainable hotel options with different price levels.

Since the pandemic has had an enormous impact on most hospitality businesses, there is a call to investigate how COVID-19 has affected hospitality customers’ intentions to behave in ways that increase sustainable consumption. Based on the research gaps and industrial needs, this study has five objectives. The first is to identify the effect of the perceived threat of COVID-19 on sustainable behavioral intention. The second is to determine whether environmental concerns and the value placed on patronizing a sustainable business mediate the effect of perceived threats on sustainable behavioral intention. The third is to assess whether perceived threats influence preference for a sustainable (vs. non-sustainable) hotel. The fourth is to analyze the influence of the salience of COVID-19 on preference for a sustainable (vs. non-sustainable) hotel. The fifth is to examine the influence of the salience of COVID-19 on preference for a sustainable (vs. non-sustainable) hotel under different pricing conditions. To achieve the five objectives, five independent empirical studies were carried out. The results of this research provide academic and practical implications for future research and management action.

Literature Review

Effect of Perceived Threat of COVID-19 on Sustainable Behavioral Intention

This research is situated within the broader body of knowledge related to customers’ reactions to sustainable or pro-environmental consumption practices (e.g., Agyeiwaah, 2019; Bridges & Wilhelm, 2008; de Jong & Varley, 2018; Hall, 2009, 2019; Han, 2020; Kim et al., 2020; Kumar & Yadav, 2021; Luchs et al., 2015). Stemming from consumer behavior theories, now that purchase decision making involves various types of risks, consumers are very sensitive to perceived risks, especially when dealing with imperfect and asymmetrical information, as described in the theory of information economics (Spence, 1974). According to perceived risk theory, consumers tend to minimize perceived risk rather than maximize expected favorable results (Sheth & Venkatesan, 1968). In the case of unacceptable levels of perceived risk, consumers try to deploy risk reduction strategies, including searching for more information (Beatty & Smith, 1987), choosing reputable brands (Chang & Chen, 2013), choosing a safe option (Atadill & Lu, 2021; Kim, Kim et al., 2022), choosing a hygienic option (Jang et al., 2021), choosing a product with a warranty option (Dowling & Staelin, 1994), choosing a technology option (Shin & Kang, 2020), and engaging in irrational behavior such as stockpiling (Kim, Giroux et al., 2020).

Various aspects of the COVID-19 pandemic have created a paradigm shift in consumers’ conventional attitudes and behaviors with regard to sustainable consumption practices in hospitality businesses. Compared with the impacts of previous health crises such as the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) in 2003, the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic have engendered new consumption and choice patterns, including preferences for suburban peer-to-peer accommodation (Jang et al., 2021; Kim et al., in press), the need for hotel hygiene and cleanliness (Atadill & Lu, 2021; Shin & Kang, 2020; Yang, 2020; Yu et al., 2021), and changes in public dining behaviors (Kim & Lee, 2020).

The perceived threat of COVID-19 has contributed to reinforcing preferences for digitalization and high technology in hospitality premises, helping to cut down on paper wastage, waiting times, booking times, and personal transportation to purchase services (Kim et al., 2021; Shin & Kang, 2020). Consumers have demonstrated more interest in animal ethics, such as game meat avoidance and a willingness to patronize animal welfare products (Yang, 2020). Jribi et al. (2020) found that COVID-19 has encouraged more sustainable consumption activities, such as reductions in food waste, avoidance of inappropriate storage, overcooking, and over-purchasing, as well as increasing the eating of food leftovers, and food storing and saving. From an environmental education perspective, Severo et al. (2021) noted that COVID-19 has contributed to altering consumer attitudes towards sustainable consumption, including the enhancement of environmental awareness and social responsibility.

Similarly, Jones and Comfort (2020) found that the pandemic contributed to the wide promotion of sustainable development. Some researchers have argued that since the loss of a stable relationship between humans and the natural environment led to this global health crisis, humans should adopt pro-environmental behavior (Jamal & Budke, 2020). In addition, the fear and uncertainty caused by the pandemic has accelerated customers’ preferences for sustainable products (Romagosa, 2020). The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the importance of the environment and increased interest in global issues such as climate change, food waste, and sustainable development (Galvani et al., 2020). An empirical study by Jian et al. (2020) found that fear of COVID-19 and uncertainty positively influenced environmental concern, which positively affected trust in green hotel brands.

However, previous studies on the impacts of COVID-19 on customer decision-making processes in purchasing and consuming sustainable products have provided descriptive commentaries rather than empirical testing. Therefore, this research empirically investigates whether the perceived threat of COVID-19 affects sustainable behavioral intentions. The following hypothesis was proposed:

H1: The perceived threat of COVID-19 enhances sustainable behavioral intention.

Mediating Role of Environmental Concern and Perceived Value of Patronizing a Sustainable Business

As perceived risk theory states, perceived risk determines the assessment of product quality, brand value, and consumers’ actions to mitigate the risk (Chang & Chen, 2013). Adopting Ajzen’s (1991) theory of planned behavior (TPB), Verma and Chandra (2018) found that customer attitudes toward sustainable consumption led to interest in a sustainability-friendly, green hotel. There were gain, normative, and hedonic motivations, and the latter two were significant in leading to green consumption behavior (Rezvani et al., 2018; Tang et al., 2019). Utilitarian and hedonic motivations are elements that maximize customers’ intentions to purchase sustainable products and engage in sustainable consumption (Han et al., 2020; Kumar & Yadav, 2021). Kumar and Yadav (2021) found that utilitarian value-seeking consumers had greater intention to buy green apparel because they believed that purchasing such clothing enhanced sustainability.

Some studies have found that personal values and environmental consciousness influence consumers’ attitudes to sustainable consumption behavior (Cai et al., 2021; Jian et al., 2020; Mehta & Sharma, 2021; Sharma & Jha, 2017; Wang et al., 2014). For example, Sharma and Jha (2017) found that those who had personal values such as acceptance, compassion, and universalism showed a higher inclination to adopt sustainable consumption behavior. According to the level of severity of the threat of COVID-19, hospitality businesses should see an augmentation of customer preferences for sustainable consumption and increased sensitivity to environmental issues (Mehta & Sharma, 2021).

Jang et al. (2021) found that Airbnb customers who perceived a higher level of threat from the pandemic showed a preference for facilities with sustainable practices such as cleanliness, hygiene, and reduced contact. Similarly, Cai et al. (2021) found that customers with a greater preference for a greener and healthier physical environment during the COVID-19 pandemic revealed a higher level of perception of wellbeing, satisfaction and sustainable behavioral intention in the bed and breakfast sector. Jian et al. (2020) found empirical evidence that environmental concern mediated between fear and uncertainty of COVID-19 and trust in a green hotel brand.

In summary, although the degree of threat of COVID-19 increases customers’ sustainable behavioral intentions, the relationship varies according to the magnitude of environmental concern and the perceived value of patronizing a sustainable business. On this basis, the following hypothesis was formulated:

H2: The effect of the perceived threat of COVID-19 on sustainable behavioral intention is mediated by environmental concern and the perceived value of patronizing a sustainable business.

Effect of Perceived Threat of COVID-19 on Preference for a Sustainable (vs. Non-Sustainable) Hotel Brand

As Cohen (2020, p. 2) noted, there is value in ensuring that the “coronavirus outbreak contributes to a sustainable consumption transition. This would be one way to offset some of the unfortunate suffering and disruption caused by this event.” Under stringent social distancing measures, hospitality guests prefer a hospitality business that provides sanitized over non-sanitized environments, high-technology services over human services, contactless over contact service, and virtual over face-to-face engagement (Ateljevic, 2020; Jiang & Wen, 2020; Kim et al., 2021; Qian et al., 2021; Sigala, 2020).

There are many commentaries on consumers’ preferences for sustainable products and brands under the COVID-19 pandemic because the pandemic stimulated greater interest in hospitality business brands implementing sustainable practices such as food waste reduction and recycling behaviors (González-Torres et al., 2021; Gössling et al., 2021; Higgins-Desbiolles, 2020; Romagosa, 2020; Sigala, 2020). In Jian et al.’s (2020) study, as the magnitude of fear and uncertainty about COVID-19 increased, consumers’ preferences for a green hotel brand because of environmental concerns acted as a mediating variable. However, since there is scant literature to empirically test the relationship, this research attempts to identify customers’ intentions to opt for a sustainable hotel brand in a threatening pandemic situation. The hypothesis was as follows:

H3: The perceived threat of COVID-19 increases preference for a sustainable (vs. non-sustainable) hotel brand.

Effect of Salience of COVID-19 on Choosing a Sustainable (vs. Non-Sustainable) Hotel Brand

Consumers showed a preference for choosing a green hotel or restaurant because they believed that such choices made them feel more virtuous, uplifted by good moral choices, and more responsible toward the community and the environment (Boronat-Navarro & Perez-Aranda, 2020; Cui et al., 2020; Dolnicar et al., 2017; Errmann et al., 2021; Han, 2021; Kang et al., 2012; Kim, Kim, Lee et al., 2020; Teng et al., 2019). Further, consumers who purchased a sustainable product were less sensitive to price (Boronat-Navarro & Perez-Aranda, 2020; Kang et al., 2012).

In the middle of a continuing pandemic with a surge of new variants, it has been noted that the salience of COVID-19 drives consumers to prefer sustainable products and brands (Cai et al., 2021; Cohen, 2020; González-Torres et al., 2021; Jian et al., 2020). However, there have been few attempts to empirically test the relationship in the hotel brand context. Recent studies have explored the impact of COVID-19 on perceptions of price fairness (Friedman & Toubia, 2021; Jeong et at., 2020; Roggeveen & Raj Sethuraman, 2020; Zhang et al., 2020). For example, Jeong et al. (2020), who investigated consumer responses to price increases during COVID-19 lockdowns, found that price fairness was negatively perceived, but that the negative effects dissipated after lockdowns. Similarly, Friedman and Toubia (2021), who examined price perceptions during COVID-19, found that consumers perceived the price as being fair when price increases were attributed to providing hygienic products.

The results of previous studies indicate that the magnitude of the COVID-19 threat influences perceptions of the price level and value of products. Further, consumers showed strongly negative emotional reactions towards price injustice as the COVID-19 situation became more aggravated (Zhang et al., 2020). Thus, the severity of the pandemic prompts intentions to buy sustainable products that ensure price fairness and value for money. In summary, the level of salience of the pandemic is likely to determine preference for a sustainable hotel brand. In addition, despite the hotel having a higher room price, a consumer is likely to select a sustainable hotel brand that demonstrates price fairness.

H4a: The salience of COVID-19 increases preference for a sustainable hotel brand.

H4b: The salience of COVID-19 increases preference for a sustainable hotel brand with a higher price condition.

As Figure 1 shows, these hypotheses were examined using five empirical studies, which revealed the main effect of the perceived threat of COVID-19 on increasing sustainable behavioral intention (Study 1) and preference for a sustainable hotel brand (Study 3). The mediation effect involving environmental concerns and the value of patronizing a sustainable business in explaining the main effect (Study 2) was also examined. Additionally, Studies 4 and 5 investigated whether the salience of the COVID-19 threat can influence preference for a sustainable hotel brand and for hotel brands with higher prices. Collectively, this series of empirical studies addressed how a situational factor (COVID-19) affects consumers’ intentions to behave in ways that increase sustainable consumption in the hospitality industry.

Figure 1.

Theoretical Framework and Empirical Studies.

Participants residing in the United States were recruited using an Amazon Mechanical Turk online panel, because onsite surveys were not feasible due to the hazardous COVID-19 situation. This approach was confirmed by Buhrmester et al. (2011), who supported the usefulness of online surveys. Additional information on the samples for each study is provided in subsequent sections. Figure 1 shows the relationships between the five studies and the stated hypotheses.

Empirical Research

Prior to conducting the main statistical analyses for each study, the normality of the dependent variables was ascertained by checking Q-Q plots and Kolmogorov-Smirnov values. The plots showed that observations were located on the line, and Kolmogorov-Smirnov values indicated no significance at the .001 level. As a result, the variables met the assumption of normality. A scenario realism check was conducted for Studies 3, 4, and 5. Before respondents answered the main questions, they were asked to clarify whether the given scenarios were acceptable in a real business market. Since all respondents showed agreement, subsequent data analyses were implemented.

Study 1: Testing Hypothesis 1 to Analyze the Relationship Between the Perceived Threat of COVID-19 and Sustainable Behavioral Intention

In Study 1, the relationship between the perceived threat from COVID-19 and sustainable behavioral intention was investigated. It was expected that participants who felt more threatened by the virus would show greater sustainable behavioral intention (Hypothesis 1). Perceived threat can vary according to mood (e.g., McCorkle & Quint-Benoliel, 1983), so this research investigated whether mood had an impact on sustainable behavioral intention (see Kim, Giroux et al. [2020] for the application of a similar method).

Survey participants, materials and methods

Participants were 135 adults (M_age = 37.52, SD = 12.73; 45.2% female) recruited from an online panel (Amazon Mechanical Turk) for a nominal payment. Participants were informed that the survey consisted of multiple unrelated tasks. They were given basic information about the COVID-19 pandemic and asked to rate their perceptions of the threat of COVID-19 by answering two items borrowed from Kim and Lee (2020): “What are the chances of you getting infected with the coronavirus (COVID-19)?” and “What are the chances of an average person getting infected with the coronavirus (COVID-19)?” Responses were measured using 7-point scales (1 = extremely low, 7 = extremely high). The reliability alpha for the construct was 0.750, which exceeded Nunnally’s (1978) threshold (0.70) and thus confirmed internal consistency.

The participants then indicated their sustainable behavioral intention by answering seven items developed by Juvan and Dolnicar (2016; e.g., “To what extent do you want to use environmentally certified tourism providers?” and “To what extent do you want to refuse to undertake a vacation activity primarily to protect the environment?”). The items were measured on 7-point scales (1 = not at all, 7 = very much). The construct reliability alpha was 0.935, so internal consistency among the items was established. Participants also provided their demographic information (gender and age). Finally, mood was measured with a single item on a 7-point scale (1 = very bad, 7 = very good).

Results

A linear regression analysis was conducted (IVs: perceived threat and mood, DV: sustainable behavioral intention) to test the impact of perceived threat and mood on sustainable behavioral intention. The result of the overall model was significant (adjusted R² = 0.146, F (2, 132) = 12.42, p < . 001). As anticipated, mood was not significant in predicting sustainable behavioral intention (β = 0.126, t = 1.57, p = .118), whereas perceived threat positively influenced sustainable behavioral intention (β = 0.366, t = 4.57, p < .001). Consistent results were found when the perceived threat was a single IV predicting sustainable behavioral intention (adjusted R² = 0.136, F [1, 133] = 22.12, β = 0.378, t = 4.70, p < .001), supporting H1. Thus, participants who perceived a greater threat showed a greater intention to participate in sustainable consumption. In addition, the effect of the perceived threat of the pandemic on sustainable behavioral intention was not significantly explained by mood.

Study 2: Testing Hypothesis 2 to Analyze the Mediation Role of Environmental Concern and Perceived Value of Patronizing a Sustainable Business

Even though previous studies provided initial evidence for our arguments, the empirical results to support the underlying mechanisms are very limited. In order to assess the role of mediators, environmental concern and perceived value of patronizing a sustainable business were examined. It was expected that there would be a significant mediation pattern (i.e., perceived threat → environmental concern → perceived value of patronizing a sustainable business → sustainable behavioral intention). In addition, a different measurement for the perceived threat was used to extend external validity.

Survey participants, materials and methods

The participants were 217 adults (M_age = 35.86, SD = 10.71, 43.3% female) recruited from Amazon Mechanical Turk. First, participants indicated their perceived threat of COVID-19 by answering two items including “In your opinion, is coronavirus (COVID-19) a serious threat?” on 7-point scales (1 = not at all serious, 7 = very serious), which were used in previous studies (Kim & Lee, 2020 & Kim et al., 2020). The two items showed high reliability alphas (0.754), confirming internal consistency. To examine responses about sustainable practices, three constructs, including the perceived value of patronizing a sustainable business, sustainable behavioral intention, and environmental concern were used, as described in Figure 2. Their reliability alphas were 0.881, 0.833 and 0.832, respectively. All items for the three constructs were rated on 7-point scales (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree).

Figure 2.

Measurement Items Used for Study 2.

Results

As Figure 3 shows, a direct effect between perceived threat of COVID-19 and sustainable behavioral intention was identified (β = .144, p = .001). Then, to test the mediation path (Hypothesis 2), a serial mediation analysis was conducted (perceived threat → environmental concern → perceived value of patronizing a sustainable business → sustainable behavioral intention) using Hayes’ (2017) PROCESS macro analysis (Model 6 with 5,000 bootstrapping). As anticipated, the results showed that serial mediation was significant (effect = 0.077, SE = 0.028, 95% Confidence Interval [CI] [0.0316, 0.142]). Detailed results are provided in Figure 3. Given that the direct effect remained significant (effect = 0.144, SE = 0.040, 95% CI [0.065, 0.223], the mediation path suggested a partial mediation (Kim et al., 2018). These results supported Hypothesis 2.

Figure 3.

Mediation Results of Study 2.

Study 3: Testing Hypothesis 3 to Analyze the Relationship Between the Perceived Threat of COVID-19 and the Preference for a Sustainable Hotel Brand

Study 3 was designed to examine Hypothesis 3 in a choice setting. Survey participants indicated a preference between two hotel options that differed in sustainability attributes. It was predicted that participants who perceived a greater threat from COVID-19 would prefer a hotel with high sustainability attributes to a hotel with high quality attributes.

Survey participants, materials and methods

Participants were 139 adults (M_age = 37.32, SD = 12.74, 51.1% female) recruited from Amazon Mechanical Turk. Participants first indicated their perceived threat from COVID-19 on the same scale as used in Study 1 (Cronbach’s α = 0.830). Then they were asked to imagine that they were planning a business trip and looking to book a hotel. They were given two hotel options (i.e., Hotel P and Hotel K), which included information that stated that the two hotels were similar in customer ratings, locations, and amenities but differed in quality and sustainability (Figure 4). Hotel P was the option with superior quality (with the “certificate of excellence” badge), whereas Hotel K was the option with superior sustainability (with the “green global certified” badge). Then, participants rated their relative preference for the two hotels on a 7-point scale (1 = definitely Hotel P, 7 = definitely Hotel K).

Figure 4.

Stimuli for Studies 3 and 4.

Results

A linear regression analysis was conducted (IV: perceived threat, DV: relative preference for a sustainable hotel (Hotel K) over a hotel with high quality (Hotel P). Checking the DV confirmed its normality. The results showed that the overall model was significant (adjusted R² = 0.163, F (1, 137) = 27.85, p < .001). Specifically, the preference for the sustainable option was higher when there was a higher perceived threat arising from the pandemic (β = 0.411, t = 5.28, p < .001), supporting Hypothesis 3.

Study 4: Testing Hypothesis 4a to Analyze the Relationship Between Manipulated COVID-19 Threat and Preference for a Sustainable Hotel Brand

The previous three studies provided empirical evidence for a positive relationship between the perceived threat of the pandemic and sustainable behavioral intention. One limitation was that the perceived threat from the virus crisis was measured in these studies. Therefore, the causal relationship in Studies 1 to 3 was not strongly identified. To provide stronger causal evidence, Study 4 manipulated the salience of the threat (i.e., using a writing task that involved describing the lockdown—see the following section for details). Participants indicating high (vs. low) virus salience were expected to prefer a sustainable hotel option. In addition, different items were used to assess environmental concern, as outlined below.

Survey participants, materials and methods

Participants were 167 adults (M_age = 36.65, SD = 10.96, 40.7% female) recruited from Amazon Mechanical Turk. Responses from another 15 participants were excluded from the main analysis because they did not correctly follow the instructions for this study (e.g., poor or irrelevant responses in the writing tasks).

Participants were randomly assigned to one of two experimental conditions: high salience of COVID-19 (writing about their experiences of lockdown) versus low salience (writing about their last week’s daily experiences). The general procedure was similar to that used in Study 2 with a few modifications. First, the manipulation of the salience of COVID-19 was exactly similar to that of Kim and Lee (2020). Specifically, participants were asked to write about either their recent experiences of a lockdown or their recent daily experiences, according to the experimental condition to which they were assigned. Participants wrote details of their experience for approximately 2 min. Then, they were provided with the hotel decision task (as in Study 3) and indicated their preferences for a superior quality and a superior sustainability hotel. Finally, they were asked to indicate their perceived environmental concern for the two hotel options on a seven-point scale (“Which hotel do you perceive as demonstrating a better practice of environmental sustainability?”; 1 = Definitely Hotel P showed high sustainability, 7 = Definitely Hotel K showed high sustainability).

Pre-test

In order to check the manipulation of COVID-19 salience, a pre-test was conducted (n = 82 adults from Amazon Mechanical Turk, M_age = 37.95, SD = 14.55, 42.7% female). After being asked to do the same writing tasks, participants were asked to answer the perceived threat of COVID-19 with the same two items scales of the main Study 2 on 8-point scales (Cronbach’ alpha = .856). The results indicated that the perceived threat of COVID-19 differed as a result of the salience manipulation (M_{high salience} = 6.48, SD = 1.66 vs. M_{low salience} = 5.63, SD = 1.95; F (1, 80) = 4.42, p = .039, η² = 0.052).

Results

ANOVA tests (IV: salience of the COVID-19) were conducted for the two constructs. As anticipated, the salience of the threat from the pandemic positively influenced preference for using the higher-sustainability hotel option (Hotel K) rather than the better-quality hotel option (Hotel P), M_{high salience} = 5.38, SD = 1.79 vs. M_{low salience} = 4.71, SD = 1.76 (F [1,165] = 5.81, p = .017, η² = 0.034), supporting Hypothesis 4a. In addition, the perceived environmental concerns relating to the two hotel options were significantly influenced by the salience manipulation (M_{high salience} = 5.81, SD = 1.39 vs. M_{low salience} = 5.23, SD = 1.72; F [1, 165] = 3.94, p = .049, η² = 0.023).

A mediation analysis was then conducted (salience of the COVID-19 → environmental concern → relative preference for the sustainable hotel option) by using Hayes’ (2017) PROCESS analysis (Model 4 with 5,000 bootstrapping). The results showed a significant mediation effect (effect = 0.231, SE = 0.134, 95% CI [0.001, 0.521]), supporting Hypothesis 2 in a different outcome. Given that the direct effect did not remain significant (effect = 0.440, SE = .257, 95% CI [─.067, .947]), the mediation path suggested a full mediation.

Study 5: Replication of the COVID-19 Threat Manipulation Under Different Price Conditions

Even though the previous studies found supporting evidence for H4a, price information is an important factor influencing customers’ preference for hotels (Boronat-Navarro & Pérez-Aranda, 2020; Cui et al., 2021; Kang et al., 2012). Therefore, the participants in this study were exposed to price information. To test Hypothesis 4b, Study 5 used a different method of manipulating COVID-19 impacts to extend the external validity of the threat manipulation. A positive effect of a higher COVID-19 threat on the sustainable hotel option was noted even when the price of the sustainable hotel option was higher than that of the non-sustainable hotel option. Participants with high (vs. low) virus salience were expected to prefer the sustainable hotel.

Survey participants, materials and methods

Participants were 130 adults (M_age = 41.24, SD = 13.66, 48.5% female), recruited from Amazon Mechanical Turk. Participants were assigned to one of two conditions: high salience (reading newspaper articles about COVID-19) versus low salience (reading newspaper articles about food). Participants were informed that this study consisted of multiple but different tasks. First, participants were asked to read a newspaper article in order to manipulate the salience of COVID-19 (adopted from Kim et al., 20201). The topic of the newspaper article differed between the two experimental conditions. Participants in the high salience of COVID-19 condition were exposed to a newspaper article regarding brain damage due to COVID-19, whereas those in the low salience condition were exposed to an article about food, as shown in Figure 5.

Figure 5.

Stimuli for Study 5.

Afterwards, participants were asked to imagine that they were planning a business trip to a city and asked to choose a hotel from two options, similar to Study 4. However, the price of the sustainable hotel option ($180) was higher than that of the non-sustainable hotel option ($170), as shown in Figure 5. Participants were asked to rate their relative preference on a 7-point scale (higher numbers represented a greater preference for the sustainable hotel).

Pre-test

In order to check the manipulation of COVID-19 salience, a pre-test was conducted (n = 90 adults from Amazon Mechanical Turk, M_age = 40.45, SD = 11.73, 56.7% female). After being asked to read one of two articles, participants were asked to rate the perceived threat of COVID-19 with the same two items from Study 2, using 7-point scales (Cronbach’ alpha = .833). The results indicated that the perceived threat of COVID-19 was influenced by the experimental conditions (M_{high salience} = 5.90, SD = 1.27 vs. M_{low salience} = 5.11, SD = 1.66; F [1, 88] = 6.27, p = .014, η² = 0.067).

Results

First, an ANOVA (IV: the salience of the COVID-19) was conducted on the relative preference for the two hotels. The results supported the prediction that the salience of the threat from the pandemic was significant in producing a preference for the sustainable hotel option of Hotel K (F [1,128] = 4.02, p = .047, η² = 0.030). The preference for the sustainable hotel option was higher when the COVID-19 threat was highly salient (M_{high salience} = 4.68, SD = 2.12 vs. M_{low salience} = 3.92, SD = 2.18), supporting H4b. Overall, the results were similar to those of Study 4. Additionally, the higher preference for the sustainable hotel option under the high (vs. low) salience conditions was replicated even when the price of the sustainable hotel option was higher than the non-sustainable hotel.

General Discussion

Summary of the Empirical Studies

In five empirical studies, this research investigated the perceived threat of COVID-19 on consumers’ preference for sustainable consumption. Study 1, which was designed to test Hypothesis 1, revealed that the perceived threat from the pandemic positively influenced consumers’ sustainable behavioral intention. This finding is similar to those of previous studies in which the impact of COVID-19 stimulated sustainable consumption activities such as reduction of food waste, enhancement of environment awareness, and increased sustainable food consumption (Jribi et al., 2020; Severo et al., 2021; Yang, 2020).

Study 2 initially discovered a direct effect of perceived threat of COVID-19 on sustainable behavioral intention. This outcome supported the findings of previous studies, which identified how COVID-19 contributed to directly evoking sustainable consumption behavior intention (Cai et al., 2021; Cohen, 2020; Galvani et al., 2020). Study 2 also provided serial mediation evidence involving environmental concern and perceived value of patronizing a sustainable business in a relationship between perceived threat of COVID-19 and sustainable behavioral intention, confirming Hypothesis 2. This study in the hospitality context also verified that individual values of patronizing a sustainable business and environmental concerns about sustainable practices relating to safety, hygiene, health, and recycling, positively influence sustainable behavioral intention in a situation where high COVID-19 salience offered a threat to consumers. Therefore, as poor environmental management practices can facilitate the spread of COVID-19 (Amankwah-Amoah, 2020; Yu et al., 2021), hospitality customers’ concerns about threat-induced environment will increase their intention to undertake more sustainable behaviors in hospitality businesses.

Study 3 adopted a decision scenario involving a choice between two different hotel options in terms of sustainability and quality. The results supported Hypothesis 3 in that a perceived higher threat of COVID-19 increased preference for the sustainable hotel. This finding provides additional insight into how situational factors (COVID-19) influence hotel customers’ preferences for a sustainable hotel option. With the background of the COVID-19 pandemic, hotel customers preferred a hotel brand that implemented sustainable practices such as food waste management, and offered an enhanced sanitary environment, rather than a less sustainable hotel brand when they perceived COVID-19 as more threatening. The finding is also in line with those of previous studies, which found that travelers tend to prefer a hotel that implements sustainable practices over a hotel that applies less sustainable practices when there are high levels of COVID-19 transmission (Cai et al., 2021; Jian et al., 2020; Kim et al., 2021; Mehta & Sharma, 2021).

Studies 4 and 5 used manipulations of the salience of the pandemic on preference for the sustainable hotel option, establishing a strong causal relationship between the salience of the pandemic and preference for a sustainable brand hotel, both with the same price as a less sustainable hotel (supporting Hypothesis 4a) and with a higher price (supporting Hypothesis 4b). According to the results, the salience of COVID-19 increased preference for the sustainable hotel (Hypothesis 4a), and the salience of COVID-19 contributed to increased preference for the sustainable hotel despite different price conditions (Hypothesis 4b).

This research provides empirical evidence that when the salience of COVID-19 is high, hotel customers show a greater preference for a sustainable hotel because sustainable practices that safeguard customers from COVID-19 transmission help customers to perceive price fairness and value for money. The results are supported by previous studies showing that customer willingness to pay is higher for sustainable rather than less sustainable products (Boronat-Navarro & Perez-Aranda, 2020; Jian et al., 2020; Kang et al., 2012). The results support this hypothesis in the situational context of a global public health pandemic.

Theoretical Implications

This research has several key academic implications. First, previous studies have examined how sustainable practices affect financial performance in the hospitality industry (Ameer & Othman, 2012; Chan & Lam, 2001; Rahman et al., 2012). However, the current research investigated consumer psychological states in predicting sustainable behavior and preference for a sustainable hotel. The findings support the proposition that consumers believe sustainable consumption is more ethical and mindful during the pandemic (Dolnicar et al., 2017; Errmann et al., 2021; Stankov et al., 2020; Tomsa et al., 2021) and helps to foster a trust-based relationship through minimizing the perceived purchasing risk and perceiving better utility.

A future study needs to examine customer attitudes toward pro-sustainability practices and policies, such as the adoption of information and machine technologies, reduction of CO₂ emissions, legal issues relating to climate change, compliance with recycling and food waste reduction regulations, stricter hygiene and sanitation measures, corporate social responsibility, and animal rights ethics.

Second, this research provides empirical evidence that hotel customers’ preferences for sustainable hotel options are influenced by situational factors. The findings show the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on consumer preference and intention towards sustainable behaviors. The results can be explained by perceived risk theory: customers who encounter unexpected risk are susceptible to more environmental concern, which can increase their perceived risk. It was found that the magnitude of perceived risk can negatively influence perceptions of green quality and brand awareness (Chang & Chen, 2013; Jian et al., 2020). The results complement the extant literature on sustainability in the hospitality field by extending the understanding of sustainable behaviors under the perceived threats of a pandemic.

Third, this research shows the mediating roles of environmental concern and the perceived value of patronizing a sustainable business. The results suggest a significant interaction between the situational factors of the threat of the pandemic, the psychological factors of environmental concern, and the perceived value of patronizing a sustainable business. Given the lethal and contagious nature of the pandemic, customers became more aware of sustainability practices and tended to choose a sustainable option. Hence, a change in personal values with regard to the environment during the COVID-19 outbreak augmented sustainability behavioral intentions. This research demonstrates that psychological factors related to the pandemic informed decision making and values, which led consumers to prefer a sustainable hotel. This work can serve as a benchmark to develop a series of experiments to further examine the impact of situational factors on customer preferences and sustainable consumption.

Fourth, most studies have found that products embedding salient value exhibit excellence in competing with others and guarantee price fairness (Cui et al., 2021; Park et al., 2010; Zhang et al., 2020). The current research confirmed that sustainability acts as a major factor in choosing a hotel in a risky business environment, and ascertained the influence of COVID-19 on consumer choice of a sustainable hotel option, even if the hotel is relatively costly. Given the paucity of academic efforts to explore consumer preferences for sustainable products during the COVID-19 health crisis, the findings will improve the understanding of consumers’ decision-making about a sustainable brand, and of their needs and wants during an unpredictable crisis event. According to situational crisis communication theory, since consumers have different perceptions of a company before and after a crisis, communication strategies pre- and post-crisis should be different (Kim et al., 2022). Therefore, the results of these empirical studies can help generate hotel promotional strategies relevant to sustainable practices.

Practical Implications

This research has practical implications for stakeholders and industry practitioners. First, the findings advocate the adoption of sustainability polices in the hospitality industry, especially during a global pandemic. As addressed in situational crisis communication theory, the choice of the right communication strategies, such as selection of messages and media post-crisis, needs to be proactive to guarantee a company’s future growth (Kim et al., 2022). From the hotel management’s perspective, this means that the challenge is to go beyond the gimmicks of marketing (e.g., simple references to green and eco-friendly services on websites) and approach sustainability in a more focused, concerted, holistic manner than prior to the pandemic. This may include activities such as educational campaigns for customers and staff on sustainability practices, using digitalized communication platforms (social media networks or online workshops and programs; Chi et al., 2022; Choi et al., 2020; Oh et al., 2022: Wong & Kim, 2020). Educational initiatives may help impart knowledge, create greater awareness about sustainable consumption, and attract new, environmentally aware and enlightened customers.

Second, apart from educational campaigns, a more holistic view of sustainability can encompass rethinking food consumption in hotels, and regenerating natural habitats. For example, beyond enhanced health and hygiene measures in its hotels worldwide, Banyan Tree has developed holistic, plant-based, immunity-boosting foods and sustainable kitchen practices. It is also engaging in initiatives that aim to plant trees in communities where its hotels are located, capturing carbon and binding soil to reduce erosion (Hall, 2019; Sin, 2021; Teng et al., 2019).

Third, there is value in using the current pandemic conditions to dramatically reduce waste in hotels and restaurants. Waste reduction strategies include simple and effective measures such as paying attention to and consuming foods before their expiry dates to avoid food spoilage; keeping a stock inventory at all times (knowing exactly what food the hotel/restaurant has at any given time); avoiding overbuying stock (bulk buying from suppliers); storing food correctly (to avoid bacterial growth resulting in waste); training employees how to reduce waste by cooking food correctly; composting food waste; and other waste management strategies (Chan & Lam, 2001; Kim & Hall, 2020; Petty, 2016; Testa et al., 2019; Wong et al., 2021; Wong, Koseoglu et al., 2021).

Fourth, diverse marketing tactics by a sustainable hotel may be a viable option to stimulate more demand for hospitality businesses. Marketers of hospitality businesses should emphasize the promotion of health and show how sustainable hospitality options help safeguard customers from infection with COVID-19. Strategic approaches to marketing sustainable hospitality businesses should be developed by identifying key customer characteristics and attributes associated with perceptions of the threat of the COVID-19 pandemic (Cai et al., 2021; Jiang & Wen, 2020; Romagosa, 2020; Severo et al., 2021).

Finally, the results reveal that a sustainable brand can enhance price transparency because positive impressions of sustainability facilitate a relatively “high” price acceptance and value for money in hospitality. Therefore, although price is a major consideration, customers will show a low level of resistance to raised price levels and instead demonstrate a higher level of willingness to pay for a sustainable brand (Boronat-Navarro et al., 2020; Kang et al., 2012). Zhang et al. (2020) found that COVID-19 created negative emotional responses to price differential practices in hospitality. Thus, more environmental and sustainable strategies can help increase customer trust and loyalty in the post-pandemic world. As consumers prefer sustainable options, hospitality businesses need to harness sustainability practices and company vision in promotional content on social media to demonstrate a commitment to sustainability. For example, restaurants need to promote their sustainability initiatives, including cutting carbon emissions, reducing the use of plastic utensils, recycling, and contributing to communities. Since the COVID-19 crisis is encouraging consumers to resonate more with voluntary cooperation on diverse imminent global issues, these holistic endeavors will help companies enhance their brand equity as sustainability leaders in the aftermath of the pandemic.

Limitations And Concluding Summary

Despite its academic and practical implications, this research has some limitations. First, due to the special research circumstances pertaining to restrictions and lockdowns during the pandemic, empirical studies only measured consumer perceptions based on the presented experimental design rather than assessing actual sustainable behaviors and decision making. A future study needs to complement these findings using primary data collected onsite. Second, a hospitality business may be interested in knowing how customer perceptions differ according to customers’ sociodemographic profiles. Therefore, for market segmentation purposes, a future study should examine how these sustainable and environmental factors are perceived according to consumers’ personal characteristics. Third, this research assessed whether consumers preferred a sustainable hotel even if they were charged a higher price than at a non-sustainable hotel. A future study needs to investigate the amount of willingness to pay for rooms or meals with businesses with sustainability certifications and qualifications that may foster increased credibility. Finally, the proposed theoretical framework in this study mostly includes cognitive concepts. Therefore, a future study needs to develop a model that identifies the role of affective concepts in explaining preferences for sustainable brand hotels or sustainable behavioral intentions.

The results confirm that the pro-environmental aspects of sustainability practices such as recycling, waste reduction, fair-trade programs, and corporate social responsibility can help a hospitality company to attract more customers during and after the pandemic. In line with situational crisis communication theory, hospitality businesses in the post pandemic era need to capitalize on messages incorporating sustainability in implementing marketing campaigns (Amankwah-Amoah, 2020; Van de Velde et al., 2010). In addition, it is beneficial for a hospitality company to obtain sustainability certification from authorized institutions, which can help bolster the brand equity of the company and retain customer loyalty. A company should also provide employees with sustainability education programs, which can help to improve the corporate image as a future-oriented and innovative organization, accountable for community and global issues, a partner in sustainable development, and an eco-friendly company.

Footnotes

Authors’ Contribution

All authors contributed this paper equally.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study (P0036209) was funded by The Hong Kong Polytechnic University.

ORCID iDs

Seongseop (Sam) Kim

Jungkeun Kim

Jinah Park

Author Biographies

Seongseop (Sam) Kim, PhD (sam.kim@polyu.edu.hk), is a Professor in the School of Hotel and Tourism Management, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University.

Jungkeun Kim, PhD (jkkim@aut.ac.nz) is an Aasociate Professor in the Department of Marketing, Auckland University of Technology.

Jacob. C. Lee, PhD (lee.jacob.c@gmail.com) is an Associate Professor in the Dongguk Business School, Dongguk University, Korea.

Jinah Park, PhD (jinah.park@polyu.edu.hk) is a Research Assistant Professor in the Hospitality and Tourism Research Centre, School of Hotel and Tourism Management, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University.

References

Agyeiwaah

(2019). Over-tourism and sustainable consumption of resources through sharing: The role of government. International Journal of Tourism Cities, 6(1), 99–116.

Ajzen

(1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211.

Alexander

(2012). Planned economic contraction: The emerging case for degrowth. Environmental Politics, 21(3), 349–368.

Amankwah-Amoah

(2020). Stepping up and stepping out of COVID-19: New challenges for environmental sustainability policies in the global airline industry. Journal of Cleaner Production, 271, Article 123000.

Ameer

Othman

(2012). Sustainability practices and corporate financial performance: A study based on the top global corporations. Journal of Business Ethics, 108(1), 61–79.

Atadill

(2021). An investigation of underlying dimensions of customers’ perceptions of a safe hotel in the COVID-19 era: Effects of those perceptions on hotel selection behavior. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 30(6), 655–672.

Ateljevic

(2020). Transforming the (tourism) world for good and (re)generating the potential ‘new normal’. Tourism Geographies, 22(3), 467–475.

Beatty

S. E.

Smith

S. M.

(1987). External search effort: An investigation across several product categories. Journal of Consumer Research, 14, 83–95.

Bridges

C. M.

Wilhelm

W. B.

(2008). Going beyond green: The “why and how” of integrating sustainability into the marketing curriculum. Journal of Marketing Education, 30(1), 33–46.

10.

Boronat-Navarro

Pérez-Aranda

J. A.

(2020). Analyzing willingness to pay more to stay in a sustainable hotel. Sustainability, 12(9), 1–17.

11.

Buhrmester

M. D.

Kwang

Gosling

(2011). Amazon’s mechanical turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality data? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(1), 3–5.

12.

Cai

Gao

(2021). The green B&B promotion strategies for tourist loyalty: Surveying the restart of Chinese national holiday travel after COVID-19. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 94, Article 102704.

13.

Chakraborty

Maity

(2020). COVID-19 outbreak: Migration, effects on society, global environment and prevention. Science of the Total Environment, 728, Article 138882.

14.

Chan

W. W.

Lam

(2001). Environmental accounting of municipal solid waste originating from rooms and restaurants in the Hong Kong hotel industry. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research, 25(4), 371–385.

15.

Chi

Han

Kim

(2022). Protecting yourself and others: Festival tourists’ pro-social intentions for wearing a mask, maintaining social distancing, and practicing sanitary/hygiene actions. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 30(8), 1915–1936. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2021.1966017

16.

Choi

Kim

(2020). Service robots in hotels: Understanding the service quality perceptions of human-robot interaction. Journal of Hospitality Marketing and Management, 29(6), 613–635.

17.

Cohen

M. J.

(2020). Does the COVID-19 outbreak mark the onset of a sustainable consumption transition? Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy, 16(1), 1–3.

18.

Collins

Potoglou

(2019). Factors influencing visitor travel to festivals: Challenges in encouraging sustainable travel. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 27(5), 668–688.

19.

Cui

Errmann

Kim

Seo

Zhao

(2020). Moral effects of physical cleansing and pro-environmental hotel choices. Journal of Travel Research, 59(6), 1105–1118.

20.

Cui

Kim

(2021). Impact of preciseness of price presentation on the magnitude of compromise and decoy effects. Journal of Business Research, 132, 641–652.

21.

de Jong

Varley

. (2018). Foraging tourism: Critical moments in sustainable consumption. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 26(4), 685–701.

22.

Dolnicar

Knezevic Cvelbar

Grün

(2017). Do pro-environmental appeals trigger pro-environmental behavior in hotel guests? Journal of Travel Research, 56(8), 988–997.

23.

Dowling

Staelin

(1994). A model of perceived risk and intended risk-handling activity. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(1), 119–134.

24.

Errmann

Kim

Lee

Seo

Lee

Kim

(2021). Mindfulness and pro-environmental hotel preference. Annals of Tourism Research, 90, Article 103263.

25.

Friedman

Toubia

(2020). Pricing fairness in a pandemic: Navigating unintended changes to value or cost. Journal of the Association for Consumer Research, 7(1), 89–97. https://doi.org/10.1086/711850

26.

Galvani

Lew

A. A.

Perez

M. S.

(2020). COVID-19 is expanding global consciousness and the sustainability of travel and tourism. Tourism Geographies, 22(3), 567–576.

27.

Goldstein

N. J.

Cialdini

R. B.

Griskevicius

(2008). A room with a viewpoint: Using social norms to motivate environmental conservation in hotels. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(3), 472–482.

28.

González-Torres

Rodríguez-Sánchez

J. L.

Pelechano-Barahona

(2021). Managing relationships in the tourism supply chain to overcome epidemic outbreaks: The case of COVID-19 and the hospitality industry in Spain. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 92, Article 102733.

29.

Gössling

Ring

Dwyer

Andersson

A. C.

Hall

C. M.

(2016). Optimizing or maximizing growth? A challenge for sustainable tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 24(4), 527–548.

30.

Gössling

Scott

Hall

C. M.

(2021). Pandemics, tourism and global change: A rapid assessment of COVID-19. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 29(1), 1–20.

31.

Hall

C. M.

(2009). Degrowing tourism: Décroissance, sustainable consumption and steady-state tourism. Anatolia, 20(1), 46–61.

32.

Hall

C. M.

(2019). Constructing sustainable tourism development: The 2030 Agenda and the managerial ecology of sustainable tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 27(7), 1044–1060.

33.

Han

(2020). Theory of green purchase behavior (TGPB): A new theory for sustainable consumption of green hotel and green restaurant products. Business Strategy and the Environment, 29(6), 2815–2828.

34.

Han

(2021). Consumer behavior and environmental sustainability in tourism and hospitality: A review of theories, concepts, and latest research. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 29(7), 1021–1042.

35.

Han

Kim

(2010). An investigation of green hotel customers’ decision formation: Developing an extended model of the theory of planned behavior. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 29(4), 659–668.

36.

Han

Lee

Meng

Chua

B. L.

Ryu

H. B.

(2020). The relative importance of volunteer tourism (sustainable/pro-social form of tourism) motivation factors for young tourists: A descriptive analysis by continents, gender, and frequency. Sustainability, 12(10), 10–21.

37.

Hayes

A. F.

(2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford publications.

38.

Higgins-Desbiolles

(2020). The “war over tourism”: Challenges to sustainable tourism in the tourism academy after COVID-19. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 29(4), 1–19.

39.

Hilton. (2022). 2021 Environmental, social, and governmental report. https://esg.hilton.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2022/04/2021-ESG-Report.pdf

40.

Jamal

Budke

(2020). Tourism in a world with pandemics: Local-global responsibility and action. Journal of Tourism Futures, 6(2), 181–188.

41.

Jang

Kim

(2021). COVID-19 and peer-to-peer accommodation: A spatial and experimental approach to Airbnb consumption. Journal of Destination Marketing and Management, 20, Article 100563. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdmm.2021.100563

42.

Jeong

Bhatt

Zhang

Suri

(2021). When should retailers increase prices during a crisis? A longitudinal inquiry during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Consumer Behavior, 20(5), 1269–1276.

43.

Jian

Yang

Zeng

(2020). The impacts of fear and uncertainty of COVID-19 on environmental concerns, brand trust, and behavioral intentions toward green hotels. Sustainability, 12, Article 8688.

44.

Jiang

Wen

(2020). Effects of COVID-19 on hotel marketing and management: A perspective article. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 32(8), 2563–2573.

45.

Jones

Comfort

(2020). The COVID-19 crisis and sustainability in the hospitality industry. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 7(2), 75–86.

46.

Jones

Hillier

Comfort

. (2014). Sustainability in the global hotel industry. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 26(1), 5–17.

47.

Jribi

Ismail

H. B.

Doggui

Debbabi

(2020). COVID-19 virus outbreak lockdown: What impacts on household food wastage? Environment, Development and Sustainability, 22(5), 3939–3955.

48.

Juvan

Dolnicar

(2016). Measuring environmentally sustainable tourist behavior. Annals of Tourism Research, 59(July), 30–44.

49.

Kang

K. H.

Stein

Heo

C. Y.

Lee

(2012). Consumers’ willingness to pay for green initiatives of the hotel industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 31(2), 564–572.

50.

Kim

Giroux

Gonzalez-Jimenez

Jang

Kim

Park

Lee, J. C., & Choi

Y. K.

(2020). Nudging to reduce the perceived threat of Coronavirus and stockpiling intention. Journal of Advertising, 49(5), 633–647. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2020.1806154

51.

Kim

M. J.

Hall

C. M.

(2020). Can sustainable restaurant practices enhance customer loyalty? The roles of value theory and environmental concerns. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 43(June), 127–138.

52.

Kim

Hwang

Phillips

Jang

Kim

J. E.

Spence

M. T.

Park

(2018). Mediation analysis revisited: Practical suggestions for addressing common deficiencies. Australasian Marketing Journal, 26(1), 59–64.

53.

Kim

Lee

Tang

(2020). Effects of epidemic disease outbreaks on financial performance of restaurants: Event study method approach. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 43(June), 32–41.

54.

Kim

Lee

Kim

Cui

(2020). Influence of choice architecture on the preference for a pro-environmental hotel. Journal of Travel Research, 59(3), 512–527.

55.

Kim

Lee

J. C.

(2020). Effects of COVID-19 on preferences for private dining facilities in restaurants. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 45(December), 67–70.

56.

Kim

Giroux

Park

Yap

Kim

Badu-Baiden

(in press). Impacts of the COVID-19 on preferences for tourism products in the sharing economy tourism products and marketing implications. Tourism Analysis. https://doi.org/10.3727/108354222X16534530194831.

57.

Kim

Badu-Baiden

Giroux

Choi

(2021). Preference for robot service or human service in hotels? Impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. International Journal of Hospitality Research, 93, Article 102795. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2020.102795

58.

Kim

Choi

Shin

Morrison

(2022). Can communication messages influence promotion of international air travel in preparation for the post COVID-19 pandemic era? Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 51, 252–267. https://doi.org//10.1016/j.jhtm.2022.03.019

59.

Kumar

Yadav

(2021). The impact of shopping motivation on sustainable consumption: A study in the context of green apparel. Journal of Cleaner Production, 295, Article 126239.

60.

Lew

A. A.

Cheer

J. M.

Haywood

Brouder

Salazar

N. B.

(2020). Visions of travel and tourism after the global COVID-19 transformation of 2020. Tourism Geographies, 22(3), 455–466.

61.

Luchs

M. G.

Phipps

Hill

(2015). Exploring consumer responsibility for sustainable consumption. Journal of Marketing Management, 31(13–14), 1449–1471.

62.

McCorkle

Quint-Benoliel

(1983). Symptom distress, current concerns and mood disturbance after diagnosis of life-threatening disease. Social Science & Medicine, 17(7), 431–438.

63.

Mehta

Sharma

(2021). Analyzing employee perspectives on the impact of COVID-19 on sustainable practices: A study of five-star hotels in India. Worldwide Hospitality and Tourism Themes, 13(5), 636–645.

64.

Nunnally

J. C.

(1978). Psychometric theory. McGraw-Hill.

65.

Badu-Baiden

Kim

Lema

(2022). Identification of delighters and frustrators in vegan-friendly restaurant experiences via semantic network analysis: Evidence from online reviews. International Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Administration. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/15256480.2021.1981186

66.

Park

Elis

Kim

Prideaux

(2010). An investigation of camping tourists’ perceptions of social equity and price acceptability judgements for user fees using a conjoint analysis. Tourism Management, 31(2), 202–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2009.02.012

67.

Petty

(2016, November 1). 17 ways to reduce food waste in your restaurant. High Speed Training. https://www.highspeedtraining.co.uk/hub/restaurant-food-waste/

68.

Qian

Miao

Liu

Zheng

Luo

(2021). Indoor transmission of SARS-CoV-2. Indoor Air, 31(3), 639–645.

69.

Rahman

Reynolds

Svaren

(2012). How “green” are North American hotels? An exploration of low-cost adoption practices. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 31(3), 720–727.

70.

Rezvani

Jansson

Bengtsson

(2018). Consumer motivations for sustainable consumption: The interaction of gain, normative and hedonic motivations on electric vehicle adoption. Business Strategy and the Environment, 27(8), 1272–1283.

71.

Roggeveen

A. L.

Sethuraman

(2020). How the COVID-19 pandemic may change the world of retailing. Journal of Retailing, 96(2), 169–171.

72.

Romagosa

(2020). The COVID-19 crisis: Opportunities for sustainable and proximity tourism. Tourism Geographies, 22(3), 690–694.

73.

Saadat

Rawtani

Hussain

C. M.

(2020). Environmental perspective of COVID-19. Science of the Total Environment, 728(August), 138870.

74.

Severo

E. A.

De Guimarães

J. C. F.

Dellarmelin

M. L.

(2021). Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on environmental awareness, sustainable consumption and social responsibility: Evidence from generations in Brazil and Portugal. Journal of Cleaner Production, 286, Article 124947.

75.

Sharma

Jha

(2017). Values influencing sustainable consumption behavior: Exploring the contextual relationship. Journal of Business Research, 76(July), 77–88.

76.

Sheth

J. N.

Venkatesan

(1968). Risk-reduction process in repetitive consumer behavior. Journal of Marketing Research, 5(3), 307–310.

77.

Shi

Wang

(2019). What affects individual energy conservation behavior: Personal habits, external conditions, or values? An empirical study based on a survey of college students. Energy Policy, 128(May), 150–161.

78.

Shin

Kang

(2020). Reducing perceived health risk to attract hotel customers in the COVID-19 pandemic era: Focused on technology innovation for social distancing and cleanliness. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 91, Article 102664.

79.

Sigala

(2020). Tourism and COVID-19: Impacts and implications for advancing and resetting industry and research. Journal of Business Research, 117(September), 312–321.

80.

Sin

(2021, April 26). The canopy project collaboration to amplify awareness on sustainability. Beam. https://beamexperience.life/banyan-tree-partners-with-earthday-org/

81.

Stankov

Filimonau

Vujičić

M. D.

(2020). A mindful shift: An opportunity for mindfulness-driven tourism in a post-pandemic world. Tourism Geographies, 22(3), 703–712.

82.

Tang

Chen

Yuan

(2020). The effects of hedonic, gain, and normative motives on sustainable consumption: Multiple mediating evidence from China. Sustainable Development, 28(4), 741–750.

83.

Testa

Galati

Schifani

Di Trapani

A. M.

Migliore

(2019). Culinary tourism experiences in agri-tourism destinations and sustainable consumption—Understanding Italian tourists’ motivations. Sustainability, 11(17), 4588.

84.

Teng

Y. M.

K. S.

(2019). Sustainability development in hospitality: The effect of perceived value on customers’ green restaurant behavioral intention. Sustainability, 11(7), 1–13.

85.

Tomșa

M. M.

Romonți-Maniu

A. I.

Scridon

M. A.

(2021). Is sustainable consumption translated into ethical consumer behavior? Sustainability, 13(6), 3466.

86.

Van de Velde

Verbeke

Popp

Van Huylenbroeck

(2010). The importance of message framing for providing information about sustainability and environmental aspects of energy. Energy Policy, 38(10), 5541–5549.

87.

Verma

V. K.

Chandra

(2018). An application of theory of planned behavior to predict young Indian consumers’ green hotel visit intention. Journal of Cleaner Production, 172(January), 1152–1162.

88.

Wang

Liu

(2014). Factors influencing sustainable consumption behaviors: a survey of the rural residents in China. Journal of Cleaner Production, 63(January), 152–165.

89.

Wong

Kim

(2020). Development and validation of standard hotel corporate social responsibility (CSR) scale from the employee perspective. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 87, Article 102507. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2020.102507

90.

Wong

Kim

Lee

Elliot

(2021). An application of Delphi method and analytic hierarchy process in understanding hotel corporate social responsibility performance scale. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 29(7), 1153–1179. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2020.1773835

91.

Wong

Koseoglu

Kim

(2021). The intellectual structure of corporate social responsibility research in tourism and hospitality: A citation/co-citation analysis. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 49(December), 270–284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2021.09.015

92.

Yang

(2020). Potential consequences of COVID-19 for sustainable meat consumption: The role of food safety concerns and responsibility attributions. British Food Journal, 123(2), 455–474.

93.

Seo

Hyun

(2021). Perceived hygiene attributes in the hotel industry: Customer retention amid the COVID-19 crisis. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 93, Article 102768.

94.

Zhang

Hou

(2020). Threat of infectious disease during an outbreak: Influence on tourists’ emotional responses to disadvantaged price inequality. Annals of Tourism Research, 84, Article 102993.