Media Influence on Tourists’ Pro-Environmental Behavior: An Analysis of Environmental Cognitive Evaluation in the Context of Chinese Tourism

Abstract

This study examines how media use influences tourists’ pro-environmental behavior in China through environmental cognitive appraisal and a theoretical framework. Environmental cognitive appraisal includes perceived environmental pollution threats, environmental knowledge, and environmental concern. Pro-environmental contextual forces, such as destination facilities, policy support, and social norms, act as external drivers of pro-environmental behavior. Place attachment, reflecting tourists’ functional dependence and emotional connection to destinations, moderates key relationships. Pro-environmental behavior involves actions to reduce environmental harm and promote conservation. The study positions media use as the core independent variable, influencing environmental cognitive appraisal, which mediates the effect on pro-environmental contextual forces and, subsequently, pro-environmental behavior. Place attachment moderates the links between environmental cognitive appraisal and contextual forces, as well as between contextual forces and behavior. Using surveys and structural equation modeling, findings reveal that media use significantly enhances tourists’ awareness of environmental pollution threats, knowledge, and concern, indirectly strengthening pro-environmental contextual forces and behavior. Place attachment amplifies these effects. The study highlights the role of media in promoting environmental awareness and behavior, emphasizing the importance of optimizing environmental communication, strengthening contextual support, and fostering place attachment to achieve sustainable tourism.

Plain language summary

How media shapes environment-friendly actions among tourists: studying how tourists think about the environment when traveling in China

As the world’s economy grows and environmental issues become more pressing, the impact of tourism on both the economy and the environment is significant. While tourism boosts economies, it can also damage the environment. It’s important for tourists to act in ways that protect the places they visit. Researchers are looking into how the media can encourage tourists to adopt these environmentally friendly behaviors. In this study, using data from the Chinese Social Survey, the focus is on how the media influences people’s attitudes towards the environment and their actions to protect it. The study explores how media use leads to a greater awareness of environmental pollution, increases knowledge about the environment, and heightens concern for environmental issues. These factors together can lead to a stronger intention to act in an environmentally friendly way and actual eco-friendly behaviors among tourists. The study also finds that the connection people feel to a place can influence how much concern they have and how likely they are to act on that concern. The results suggest that by spreading information about environmental issues and increasing awareness of pollution, the media can play a key role in promoting actions that protect the environment, thereby making tourism more sustainable.

Keywords

environmental cognitive evaluation environmental concern environmental knowledge environmental pollution threat perception media use place attachment pro-environmental behaviors

Highlights

The results of this study confirm that tourists’ perception of external stimuli affects their pro-environmental behavioral responses through the assessment of their environmental cognition. This expands the application of the Stimulus-Organism-Response theory in empirical research on tourism.

The study reveals a positive relationship between media use and tourists’ perception of environmental pollution threats, environmental knowledge, and environmental concern in empirical research on tourism.

Pro-environmental contextual forces play a mediating role, showing that tourists with a strong perception of contextual forces related to the destination are more likely to display favorable pro-environmental behaviors.

Place attachment successfully strengthens the relationship between environmental concern and pro-environmental contextual forces. It also successfully reinforces the relationship between pro-environmental contextual forces and pro-environmental behavior.

Introduction

The global ecological crisis is intensifying, with issues such as pollution, global warming, and natural disasters causing severe disruptions to ecological balance (Yu et al., 2019). Multinational environmental organizations warn that human-driven economic growth has accelerated environmental degradation, while the post-pandemic surge in tourism has further exacerbated greenhouse gas emissions, threatening global environmental sustainability (Gössling & Schumacher, 2010; Holmgren et al., 2019; Schanes et al., 2018). The United Nations World Tourism Organization (UNWTO) predicts that by 2050, the growth of tourism will result in significant increases in energy and water consumption, as well as a dramatic rise in greenhouse gas emissions and waste production (UN_Environment_Programme, 2015). Tourist behaviors, such as excessive resource use and waste generation, are key contributors to environmental degradation (Gao et al., 2021). Media, as a critical channel for information dissemination, has the potential to influence tourists’ pro-environmental behavior by enhancing their environmental knowledge, threat perception, and environmental concern (Keshavarz & Karami, 2016; Y. Liu & Li, 2021; Y. Wu et al., 2018). For example, Gao et al. (2023) proposed a rational-affective-moral factor model, emphasizing the significant role of emotional factors in shaping tourists’ pro-environmental behavior. Z. Xu et al. (2023) examined how destination psychological ownership influences pro-environmental behavior through attributions of responsibility and perceived effectiveness. J. Li et al. (2023) highlighted that enhancing destination attractiveness and place attachment effectively encourages environmentally responsible behavior. Meanwhile, Cheng and Chen (2022) explored the impact of cultural experiences on tourists’ pro-environmental behavior in heritage tourism, identifying cultural attachment as a mediating factor. Hui et al. (2023), based on Media Richness Theory, emphasized the potential of immersive journalism and metaverse promotions in fostering ecological literacy and environmental awareness. However, research on the mechanisms through which media influences tourists’ pro-environmental behavior remains limited, especially in the context of Chinese tourism. Further investigation into the role of media use in promoting pro-environmental behavior is urgently needed to address global environmental challenges and advance sustainable tourism development.

As the environmental impact of the tourism industry intensifies, promoting tourists’ pro-environmental behavior has become a key strategy for mitigating the negative effects of tourism (Becken, 2007). Existing research highlights the significant influence of emotional factors, place attachment, and psychological ownership on tourists’ pro-environmental behavior (Gao et al., 2023; J. Li et al., 2023; Z. Xu et al., 2023). For instance, emotional connections can effectively inspire tourists’ commitment to environmental protection, while psychological ownership can drive behavioral changes through attributions of responsibility and perceived effectiveness (J. Li et al., 2023; Z. Xu et al., 2023). Additionally, immersive media technologies, such as the metaverse and immersive journalism, have been shown to enhance environmental awareness, presenting new possibilities for promoting regenerative tourism (Hui et al., 2023). However, existing literature predominantly focuses on individual-level psychological variables (e.g., self-efficacy, attitudes, and values) or demographic characteristics (Casaló et al., 2019; Schmitt et al., 2018), with relatively limited attention paid to destination-level external factors, such as local community environmental awareness, infrastructure development, and conservation efforts (J. S. Wu, Font, & Liu, 2021). Furthermore, the mechanisms through which place attachment and emotional factors influence pro-environmental behavior remain insufficiently explored (Lewicka, 2011; Qu et al., 2019). Against this backdrop, in-depth exploration of destination-level influencing factors and the role of emotional factors is essential for comprehensively understanding the mechanisms underlying pro-environmental behavior. Such research also provides crucial empirical support and strategic recommendations for enhancing the sustainable development of the tourism industry.

This study, based on the Stimulus-Organism-Response (SOR) theory, aims to construct a comprehensive model to explore the mechanisms through which media use influences pro-environmental contextual forces and pro-environmental behavior via environmental cognitive appraisal, encompassing perceived environmental pollution threats, environmental knowledge, and environmental concern. Specifically, it analyzes the impact of media use on cognitive appraisal factors, uncovers the pathways through which these factors indirectly affect pro-environmental behavior via pro-environmental contextual forces, and clarifies the bridging role of contextual forces between external stimuli and behavioral responses. This study seeks to deepen the understanding of the mechanisms underlying the formation of pro-environmental behavior while providing empirical support for governments and tourism managers to optimize environmental information dissemination strategies and promote sustainable tourism development.

This study theoretically innovates by integrating media use with the multidimensional elements of environmental cognitive appraisal, clarifying the roles of perceived environmental pollution threats, environmental knowledge, and environmental concern as mediating variables. This not only enriches the application of the SOR theory in the field of pro-environmental behavior but also highlights the critical role of cognitive appraisal in shaping individual pro-environmental behavior. By introducing the variable of pro-environmental contextual forces, the study further extends the explanatory power of the SOR theory in elucidating how external stimuli influence behavioral responses through internal cognitive appraisal. This addition deepens the theoretical chain linking external stimuli, cognitive appraisal, and behavioral responses, offering a new perspective in the field of pro-environmental behavior.

This study constructs a comprehensive model based on the SOR theory to systematically explore the relationships among media use, environmental cognitive appraisal, pro-environmental contextual forces, and pro-environmental behavior. It begins by outlining the research background and theoretical foundation, followed by the development of research hypotheses through a review of the literature. A questionnaire is then developed as a measurement tool, and an empirical study is conducted to test the model’s hypotheses. Finally, theoretical implications and practical recommendations are proposed based on the research findings. This study provides a novel theoretical framework and practical pathways for researchers and practitioners in the fields of environmental protection and sustainable tourism.

Literature Review and Research Hypothesis

SOR Paradigm

The SOR model by Mehrabian and Russell explains how external cues shape behavior. SOR clarifies how stimuli affect internal states, influencing behavior (Mehrabian & Russell, 1974). This model studies environment’s impact on behavior (Sun et al., 2021). In SOR, Stimulus (S) affects the organism (O), the psychological response to stimuli. Response (R) is the behavioral reaction to stimulus content. SOR theory is used across research areas. For instance, Song et al. (2022) linked it to low-carbon behavior, using climate policy awareness as stimulus and environmental emotions as experiences. They assessed its influence on eco-friendly travel. Also, Fakfare and Sangpikul (2022) used SOR to analyze COVID-19 policies’ effects on Thai tourism. They studied local satisfaction, fear, and avoidance behaviors. This enriches insights into tourism policy amid the pandemic.

The SOR theory has been widely applied across various research fields, revealing how external stimuli influence behavior through the organism’s psychological state. For example, Song et al. (2022) linked the theory to low-carbon behavior, treating climate policy awareness as the stimulus, environmental emotions as the organism, and assessing their impact on environmentally friendly travel. Fakfare and Sangpikul (2022) applied the SOR model to analyze the impact of COVID-19 policies on Thailand’s tourism industry, examining local residents’ satisfaction, fear, and avoidance behavior, thereby offering new insights into tourism policy research during the pandemic. In addition, Nonthapot et al. (2024) analyzed water tourism demand in the Mekong River Basin using the SOR theory, uncovering how water transportation services, as the stimulus, influenced tourists’ revisit intentions. Hamdan and Basrowi (2024) explored the mediating role of community entrepreneurship development in the impact of geographical conditions, local wisdom, and traditional culture on the sustainability of tourism villages, highlighting community factors as the organism driving positive contributions to tourism village sustainability. Moreover, Florido-Benítez (2024) examined the impact of smart tourism destination development in Spain on tourist behavior, emphasizing how technology and digital services, as stimuli, enhance tourist experiences and satisfaction. Xuan et al. (2024) utilized the SOR model to explore the influence of social networks as stimuli on green hotel choices in sports activities in Vietnam, demonstrating the formation process of trust and intention in green consumption behavior. These studies illustrate the broad applicability of the SOR theory across diverse fields, from policy impacts to tourism behavior, showcasing its versatility in addressing complex behavioral dynamics.

The Environmental Cognitive Appraisal Theory’s “primary-secondary-reappraisal” process (Lazarus et al., 1970) is pivotal. It links primary appraisal to pollution threats, secondary appraisal to knowledge, and reappraisal to concern. Thus, this study, using SOR, probes media’s impact on pro-environmental actions. Here, stimulus is media’s effect, organism is cognitive processing (threat perception, knowledge, concern), and response is pro-environmental behaviors (Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Conceptual model.

Media Use

Media use involves exposure and attention. Exposure is info intake, while attention is focused info processing. Media conveys ideologies and values through universal symbols, evoking resonance (Potter, 2014). It simplifies complex climate science, aiding understanding and emotional formation. Media types studied are traditional (television, newspapers) and social (internet, networks). Traditional media boosts climate awareness (Holbert et al., 2003). Internet spurs climate info search (Zhao, 2009). Social media elevates eco knowledge (Karahan & Roehrig, 2015). Media, per agenda-setting theory, shapes knowledge, attitudes, and priorities, guiding perceptions on issues.

Perceived Environmental Pollution Threats

Perceived environmental threats are gauged threat levels from degradation (Arthur & Quester, 2004). O’Connor et al. (1999) link it to recognizing causes of environmental harm. Franzen and Meyer (2010) note rational insight, action willingness, and emotional impact. This study views it as rational insight into pollution causes and understanding.

Rogers (1975) introduced Protective Motivation Theory (PMT) for understanding how threats drive environmental behavior. It asserts that perceiving harm and identifying threats prompt protective actions (Carrete et al., 2018). As environmental issues impact personal interests, individuals adjust their stance for survival, engaging in eco-friendly acts (Z. Zhang et al., 2018). People act to shield against environmental risks, safeguarding their lives (Ding et al., 2018). When public sees harm from degradation, they’re likelier to join green efforts (Dong et al., 2018).

Media shapes understanding of environmental topics like greenhouse effect, climate change, and pollution. It underscores Earth, human, and animal threats, effectively gauging issue impact. With wider media reach, influence strengthens. As media use rises, perception of pollution threats grows. Thus, we posit (H1):

H1: Media use has a positive and significant impact on the perception of environmental pollution threats.

Environmental Knowledge

Environmental knowledge encompasses understanding about conditions, climate change, perspectives, and ecological effects of consumption/production (Pagiaslis & Krontalis, 2014). It also involves grasping issues and solutions (Angreani et al., 2022). Research suggests higher per capita income relates to greater environmental knowledge, linked to wealth growth (Guerra et al., 2016). Knowledge influences conservation intent, predicting intentions and behaviors (Gkargkavouzi et al., 2019). Otto and Pensini (2017) agree on knowledge’s role in behavior change. Thus, this study views environmental knowledge as awareness and understanding of various aspects.

Traditional media raises awareness. Zhao (2009) highlighted media’s role in understanding global warming. Social media aids awareness too. Internet boosts ecological knowledge (P. Liu et al., 2021). Y. Liu and Li (2021) linked both media types to environmental understanding. This study proposes H2:

H2: Media use has a positive and significant impact on environmental knowledge.

Environmental Concern

Environmental concern is individual focus on environmental matters. Vainio and Paloniemi (2014) added overall environmental value and future worries. Stern et al. (1995) identified egoistic, altruistic, and biospheric concern dimensions. Schultz (2001) tied self-nature link to impact perception. These dimensions merge into environmental concern—individual attention, various ecological perspectives.

Media exposure, including mass media and social media, strongly shapes environmental awareness and concern. Mass media’s consistent, credible info boosts awareness (Hansen, 2013). Social media’s interactive role aids communication, fostering engagement (Newman & Dale, 2007). Public involvement observes environmental shifts. Social media encourages responsibility (Y. Wu et al., 2018). Media’s environmental coverage elevates public concern. Thus, this study suggests the following hypothesis:

H3: Media use has a positive and significant impact on environmental concern.

Pro-Environmental Contextual Forces

Pro-environmental contextual forces refer to external conditions or factors that support individuals in engaging in pro-environmental behavior. According to Guagnano et al. (1995) and Stern and Oskamp (1987), these external forces include material factors (such as the availability of environmental facilities and resources), laws and policies (such as environmental regulations and incentives), social factors (such as group norms and social support), economic conditions (such as costs and subsidies), cultural contexts (such as the prevalence of pro-environmental values), and technological support (such as the application of green technologies). These factors shape individuals’ behavioral decision-making environments, providing motivation for environmental protection. Furthermore, Stern et al. (1999) emphasized that pro-environmental contextual forces encompass not only macro-level structural factors (such as laws and policies) but also micro-level individual experiences (such as destination facilities and landscapes). Qin and Hsu (2022) introduced this concept into the study of tourist behavior, arguing that pro-environmental contextual forces significantly influence tourists’ pro-environmental behavioral tendencies at destinations.

In this study, pro-environmental contextual forces specifically refer to external factors that influence tourists’ pro-environmental actions at destinations. These include destination facility conditions, such as the availability of waste recycling facilities and green transportation; policy support, such as environmental initiatives and promotional activities by local governments; social norms, such as the environmental awareness and behavior of local residents and tourists; and community involvement, such as the level of support and willingness to cooperate with environmental protection efforts by the local community. Therefore, studying pro-environmental contextual forces helps to uncover the deeper impact of external environments on individual pro-environmental behavior.

PMT elucidates environmental threat perception and response. It explores how threats attract and impact behavior. PMT assesses threat appraisal through perceived vulnerability and severity (Keshavarz & Karami, 2016). Higher threat exposure likelihood and severe consequences yield stronger protective responses, heightening environmental awareness. Hence, stronger pollution threat perception boosts sensitivity to external contextual forces.

Environmental knowledge shapes lifestyles via personal info exposure (Hobson, 2003). Brunswicker and Chesbrough (2018) linked knowledge to eco-friendly actions in the hotel industry. Adequate knowledge is vital for perceiving pro-environmental contextual forces. Environmental concern fosters cooperation, awareness, and involvement (Borg et al., 2020). Yet, higher concern doesn't always mean more sacrifices (Nordlund & Garvill, 2002), but it increases eco-friendly actions. Consequently, heightened environmental concern aligns with stronger perception of pro-environmental contextual forces.

To conclude, this study posits that in tourism, perception of pollution threats, environmental knowledge, and concern impact pro-environmental contextual forces. The following hypotheses are proposed:

H4: Perception of environmental threat has a positive and significant impact on pro-environmental contextual forces.

H5: Environmental knowledge has a positive and significant impact on pro-environmental contextual forces.

H6: Environmental concern has a positive and significant impact on pro-environmental contextual forces.

Pro-Environmental Behavior

Pro-environmental behavior encompasses green, responsible, and impactful actions (Han, 2015). Ho, Liao, and Rosenthal (2015) expand it to behaviors minimizing harm or maximizing benefits. Research defines diverse types like general and place-specific (Halpenny, 2010), individual, collective, and policy-supportive (Walker et al., 2015). In this study, pro-environmental behavior signifies individual eco-friendly actions in specific tourism contexts.

In recent years, research on Pro-environmental behavior has continued to expand, delving into its research hotspots, theoretical frameworks, and behavioral driving factors. Carvajal-Trujillo et al. (2024) conducted a bibliometric analysis to review the development trends in tourist pro-environmental behavior research from 1999 to 2023, revealing the evolution of research hotspots and future research directions. Jaffar and Latiff (2024) provided a systematic review based on the Norm Activation Model (2018–2023), emphasizing the key role of responsibility and normative awareness in promoting protective behavior, offering theoretical support for practice. Brick et al. (2024) investigated research practices in environmental psychology, analyzing current methodological trends in pro-environmental behavior research, and pointed out the need to strengthen cross-cultural studies and the integration of multidisciplinary approaches. Mi et al. (2024) used knowledge mapping analysis to reveal research hotspots and frontiers in the field of pro-environmental behavior, especially advancements in public perception, behavioral drivers, and policy impacts. Y. Zhang et al. (2024) studied the determinants of pro-environmental behavior among higher education students, highlighting the importance of education in shaping environmental attitudes and behaviors, providing practical insights for future sustainable development. Together, these studies provide a theoretical foundation for a deeper understanding of the complexity of pro-environmental behavior and offer strong support for the design of policies and educational practices. The influencing factors of pro-environmental behavior are shown in Table 1.

Table 1.

Factors Influencing Pro-environmental Behavior.

Author(s) (year)	Research perspective	Research findings
Carvajal-Trujillo et al. (2024)	A bibliometric analysis of pro-environmental behavior in tourists	A review of the development trends in pro-environmental behavior research from 1999 to 2023, revealing the evolution of research hotspots and future directions.
Jaffar and Latiff (2024)	Pro-environmental behavior protection from the perspective of the norm activation model	Emphasizing the key role of responsibility and normative awareness in driving protective behaviors, providing theoretical support for practice.
Brick et al. (2024)	Methodological trends in pro-environmental behavior research	Analyzing the current methodological trends in research practice, pointing out the need for strengthened cross-cultural research and integration of multidisciplinary approaches.
Mi et al. (2024)	Knowledge mapping analysis in the field of pro-environmental behavior	Revealing the research hotspots and frontiers in the field of pro-environmental behavior, particularly the progress in public cognition, behavioral drivers, and policy impacts.
Y. Zhang et al. (2024)	Determinants of pro-environmental behavior in higher education students	Exploring the role of education in shaping environmental attitudes and behaviors, providing practical insights for future sustainable development.

The broken windows theory clarifies pro-environmental contextual forces’ impact on behavior. It asserts that disorderly environments foster disorderly behavior acceptance (Kelling & Wilson, 1982). Addressing minor issues averts more severe problems (Stitt, 2023). Similarly, well-maintained settings encourage positive behavior (Lang et al., 2010). J. S. Wu et al.’s (2021) findings affirm that appealing ecological park environments boost responsible intentions. The theory links macro-environment and behavior, backing contextual forces’ role in behavior determination.

Previous research by Lee (2011) highlighted how exposure to environmental info boosts values and protective behavior among students in Hong Kong. Steg and Vlek (2009) added that lacking transportation options affects behavior. Hence, pro-environmental contextual forces can directly shape tourist behavior. Higher forces lead to greater pro-environmental actions. Consequently, this study suggests that pro-environmental contextual forces impact tourist behavior positively, forming the following hypothesis:

H7: Pro-environmental contextual forces have a significant positive impact on pro-environmental behavior.

Multiple Mediation Effects

This study delves into how media use influences pro-environmental contextual forces through multiple mediating roles of environmental pollution threat perception, knowledge, and concern. Media is crucial in enhancing perceptions, knowledge, and concern about environmental issues (Dong et al., 2018; Z. Li, 2021). Environmental info leads to lifestyle changes and promotes pro-environmental forces. Hence, media influences multiple pathways, involving threat perception, knowledge, concern, and contextual forces.

Drawing from the above research, media use positively affects threat perception, knowledge, and concern. Likewise, these factors enhance pro-environmental contextual forces. Thus, heightened media engagement links to stronger pollution threat perception, increased knowledge, and heightened concern. Consequently, these factors collectively amplify pro-environmental contextual forces. This study posits the following research hypotheses:

H8: Media use positively influences pro-environmental contextual forces through environmental pollution threat perception.

H9: Media use positively influences pro-environmental contextual forces through environmental knowledge.

H10: Media use positively influences pro-environmental contextual forces through environmental concern.

Place Attachment

Place attachment evolves from cognitive (place dependence) and affective (place identity) bonds (Patwardhan et al., 2020). Functional ties characterize place dependence (Gu & Ryan, 2008), while emotional or symbolic links define place identity (Loureiro, 2014). When a place caters to needs, it fosters attachment. In this study, following Patwardhan et al. (2020), place attachment signifies travelers’ cognitive and affective bonds formed via direct and indirect interactions with a destination.

Tourists’ place attachment is closely related to their concern for the natural environment of a specific destination. According to Social Identity Theory (SIT), individuals who identify with a group are more likely to act in ways that benefit the group (Brown, 2000). Similarly, individuals who are attached to a place and identify with its community are more likely to prioritize the interests of the place over their own self-interest (Carrus et al., 2014; Scannell & Gifford, 2014). Specifically, people with emotional ties to a place may care more about shaping its pro-environmental contextual forces through their perceived environmental pollution threats, environmental knowledge, and environmental concern. Consequently, individuals with stronger place attachment are likely to strengthen the effects of perceived environmental pollution threats, environmental knowledge, and environmental concern on pro-environmental contextual forces. Conversely, individuals with weaker place attachment may diminish these effects. Therefore, in the context of tourism, place attachment moderates the relationships between perceived environmental pollution threats, environmental knowledge, environmental concern, and pro-environmental contextual forces. Based on this, the following hypotheses are proposed:

H11: Place attachment moderates the relationship between perceived environmental pollution threats and pro-environmental contextual forces.

H12: Place attachment moderates the relationship between environmental knowledge and pro-environmental contextual forces.

H13: Place attachment moderates the relationship between environmental concern and pro-environmental contextual forces.

For the relationship between place attachment, pro-environmental contextual forces, and pro-environmental behavior, the perspective of place attachment theory supports the notion that place attachment strengthens the positive link between pro-environmental contextual forces and pro-environmental behavior. Attachment to a place can evoke a sense of responsibility for the local environment, thereby encouraging activities that contribute to environmental sustainability. Tourists with emotional attachment to a specific destination may develop an extended sense of empathy toward the destination, making them more willing to engage in behaviors that benefit it (Gosling & Williams, 2010; Kim & Thapa, 2018). Kim and Koo (2020) also found that anticipated positive emotions and empathetic concern influence pro-environmental behavior, moderated by the degree of place attachment. Based on these findings, individuals with stronger place attachment are more likely to have their pro-environmental contextual forces effectively promote pro-environmental behavior. Conversely, for individuals with weaker place attachment, the influence of pro-environmental contextual forces on pro-environmental behavior may be diminished. Thus, for tourists visiting specific destinations, place attachment can moderate the relationship between pro-environmental contextual forces and pro-environmental behavior. Based on this, the following hypothesis is proposed:

H14: Place attachment moderates the relationship between pro-environmental contextual forces and pro-environmental behavior.

This study investigates how media use impacts pro-environmental behavior within tourism. Media use is the independent variable, while environmental pollution perception, environmental knowledge, environmental concern, and place-based pro-environmental attitudes act as mediators. Pro-environmental behavior is the dependent variable, moderated by place attachment. Figure 2 depicts the research model, shaped through a comprehensive literature review.

Figure 2.

Study architecture diagram.

Methodology

Sample

This study focuses on exploring pro-environmental behavior in the tourism context. Data were collected through an online questionnaire survey conducted from May 1 to June 1, 2023. A total of 400 questionnaires were collected, with 355 valid responses retained after excluding invalid ones. The questionnaire was distributed via social media, tourism communities, and travel agency email lists to reach target groups from diverse backgrounds and ensure sample diversity. Participants were required to meet the criteria of being 18 years or older and having participated in at least one tourism activity within the past year. To ensure data validity, measures such as restricting IP submissions, removing low-quality responses, and checking logical consistency were implemented. Although the study is limited by the internet accessibility and language constraints inherent to online surveys, the use of multiple distribution channels and a rigorous data cleaning process maximized sample randomness and data quality.

Measures

The research questionnaire comprises participants’ background information and subjective perceptions of research variables. The first section collects gender, age, education, income, and residence data. The second part gauges seven latent variables via a 7-point Likert scale (1–7), adapted from previous studies.

The media usage items adopted from Huang (2016) include the ways in which environmental information is accessed, the frequency of news exposure, the level of attention given, and the assessment of how relevant the information is to the destination. These items encompass different media types, such as television, radio, newspapers, magazines, the internet, and social media platforms. Environmental threat perception employs six items from P. Liu et al. (2021) about issues’ severity like water, air, noise pollution, waste, and insufficient green spaces.

Environmental knowledge utilizes four items from Zebardast and Radaei (2022) regarding information on causes, consequences, prevention, and improved quality of life related to environmental crises. Environmental concern’s egoism, altruism, and biospheric dimensions (Stern et al., 1995) are measured through two items each.

Pro-environmental contextual forces employ seven items modified from Qun and Hsu’s (2022) dimensions, assessing factors like environment, quality, facility readiness, policy effectiveness, and travel companions. Pro-environmental behavior uses one item from Qun and Cathy and three from Kim and Koo (2020), focusing on policies, environmental quality, local flora and fauna protection, and future eco-friendly actions.

Place attachment is assessed through five items, two from J. Xu and Han (2019) and three from J. Zhang and Wang (2022), encompassing emotional connection, willingness to stay, local residents’ approval, and affinity for natural features.

The scale items developed in this study and the data sources are shown in Table 2.

Table 2.

Questionnaire Items.

Factor	Item	Source
Media use	1. I frequently obtain information and news about environmental changes through the media.	Huang (2016)
	2. I pay close attention to environmental information and news about climate change in the media.
	3. I can accurately assess the relevance of environmental information and climate change news in the media to tourist destinations.
Perceived environmental pollution threats	1. I believe that water pollution at the tourist destination is severe.	P. Liu et al. (2021)
	2. I believe that air pollution at the tourist destination is severe.
	3. I believe that noise pollution at the tourist destination is severe.
	4. I believe that industrial waste pollution at the tourist destination is severe.
	5. I believe that domestic waste pollution at the tourist destination is severe.
	6. I believe that the lack of green spaces in the area of the tourist destination is a severe issue.
Environmental knowledge	1. I can easily access information and knowledge about the causes of environmental crises, such as global warming and climate change.	Zebardast and Radaei (2022)
	2. I can easily access information and knowledge about the consequences of environmental crises at tourist destinations.
	3. I can easily access information and knowledge about how to prevent future environmental crises at tourist destinations.
	4. I can easily access information and knowledge about the importance of the environment at tourist destinations for the health and quality of life of current and future generations.
Environmental concern	1. Environmental protection is beneficial to my health.	Stern et al. (1995)
	2. Environmental protection will provide a better environment for me and my family.
	3. For the sake of environmental protection at tourist destinations, I am willing to make changes to my current lifestyle.
	4. Protecting the ecology and resources of tourist destinations can promote local socio-economic development.
	5. I believe the space and resources of tourist destinations are limited.
	6. Our lives and development need to be based on the protection of the natural environment at tourist destinations.
Pro-environmental contextual forces	1. I care about whether the local government at the tourist destination is making significant efforts toward sustainable development.	Qin and Hsu (2022)
	2. When traveling to a tourist destination, I care about whether the natural environment is clean.
	3. When traveling to a tourist destination, I care about whether there are sufficient environmental protection facilities.
	4. When traveling to a tourist destination, I care about whether the local people support environmental protection efforts.
	5. When traveling to a tourist destination, I care about whether there are enough staff to maintain environmental quality.
	6. When traveling to a tourist destination, I care about whether my travel companions value environmental protection.
	7. When traveling to a tourist destination, I feel that young people are increasingly concerned about environmental issues.
Pro-environmental behavior	1. When traveling, I accept the local environmental protection policies at the tourist destination.	Qin and Hsu (2022); Kim and Koo (2020)
	2. When traveling, I help maintain the environmental quality of the tourist destination.
	3. When traveling, I try my best not to disturb the local flora and fauna at the tourist destination.
	4. I am willing to behave more environmentally friendly on my next trip.
Place attachment	1. I have strong emotional attachment to the tourist destination.	J. Xu and Han (2019), J. Zhang and Wang (2022)
	2. When I leave, I miss the tourist destination.
	3. If given the opportunity, I am willing to live at the tourist destination.
	4. The local people at the tourist destination like having me live there.
	5. I enjoy the natural environmental characteristics of the tourist destination.

Data Analysis

The data analysis of this study will begin with descriptive statistics to examine the distribution of sample characteristics using SPSS 25.0 statistical software. Subsequently, the analysis and estimation procedure in Smart PLS 3.2.8 will be employed to test the structural equation model and examine the significance of research hypotheses. First, the reliability and validity of the scales will be assessed, followed by testing the goodness-of-fit between the research model and the sample size. Finally, path analysis, mediation effect analysis, and moderation effect analysis will be conducted to test the research hypotheses.

Study Results

Descriptive Statistics

The sample distribution in this study covers several key variables, including gender, age, education level, income, and residential area, demonstrating high representativeness (as shown in Table 3). Specifically, the gender ratio is relatively balanced, with 50.7% male and 49.3% female participants. The age range is broad, with the majority falling in the 51 to 60 age group, while other age groups are also represented. Educational levels range from high school to postgraduate, with bachelor’s degree holders making up the largest proportion (33.0%), aligning with the general educational characteristics of the tourism population. Income distribution varies from below 5,000 RMB to above 10,000 RMB, reflecting the participation characteristics of different income groups. In terms of residential areas, the sample includes participants from county-level and below areas, cities, and other types of regions, adequately representing the behavioral characteristics of tourists from diverse geographical backgrounds. Therefore, the sample in this study exhibits good diversity and representativeness, providing a reliable foundation for the research conclusions.

Table 3.

Frequency Distribution Table.

Variable	Value label	Frequency	Percent
Gender	Male	180	50.7
Gender	Female	175	49.3
Age	Under 20 years old	58	16.3
	21–30 years old	54	15.2
	31–40 years old	45	12.7
	41–50 years old	65	18.3
	51–60 years old	75	21.1
	Over 60 years old	58	16.3
Education	High school/vocational school	86	24.2
	College	90	25.4
	University	117	33.0
	Master and above	62	17.5
Income	Under 5,000 Yuan/month	139	39.2
	5,000–10,000 Yuan/month	88	24.8
	10,000–20,000 Yuan/month	55	15.5
	20,000–50,000 Yuan/month	34	9.6
	Over 50,000 Yuan/month	39	11.0
Residence area	First-tier city	92	25.9
	Provincial capital city	86	24.2
	Second-tier city	81	22.8
	Sub-provincial city	96	27.0

Measurement Model Validation

Convergent Validity

This study examined the reliability of the items using factor loading. The criterion for testing was based on the suggestion by Hair et al. (2019), which states that the correlation between the formatively measured construct and the single-item construct, measuring the same concept, should be 0.70 or higher. As shown in Table 4, the factor loadings of each construct in this study ranged from 0.816 to 0.888, all exceeding 0.7.

Table 4.

Reliability of Items.

Factor	Item	Factor loading
Environmental concern (EC)	EC1	0.849
	EC2	0.867
	EC3	0.864
	EC4	0.861
	EC5	0.868
	EC6	0.874
Environmental knowledge (EK)	EK1	0.859
	EK2	0.872
	EK3	0.876
	EK4	0.856
Perceived environmental pollution threats (EP)	EP1	0.844
	EP2	0.852
	EP3	0.867
	EP4	0.851
	EP5	0.856
	EP6	0.842
Media use (MU)	MU1	0.868
	MU2	0.849
	MU3	0.888
Pro-environmental behavior (PB)	PB1	0.850
	PB2	0.868
	PB3	0.861
	PB4	0.881
Pro-environmental contextual forces (PC)	PC1	0.816
	PC2	0.819
	PC3	0.843
	PC4	0.840
	PC5	0.856
	PC6	0.820
	PC7	0.857

Fornell and Larcker (1981) and Nunnally (1978) pointed out that Cronbach’s α should be greater than .7, composite reliability should be greater than .7, and average variance extracted should be greater than 0.5. In this study, the Cronbach’s α values for all constructs ranged from .837 to .932, indicating that all values are greater than .7. The composite reliability ranged from .902 to .946, indicating that all values are greater than .7. The average variance extracted ranged from 0.699 to 0.754, indicating that all values are greater than 0.5. Based on these statistical data, the study demonstrates good convergent validity (Table 5).

Table 5.

Convergent Validity Analysis.

Construct	Cronbach’s alpha	Composite reliability	Average variance extracted (AVE)
EC	.932	.946	0.746
EK	.889	.923	0.750
EP	.925	.941	0.726
MU	.837	.902	0.754
PB	.888	.922	0.748
PC	.928	.942	0.699

Note. EC = Environmental Concern; EK = Environmental Knowledge; EP = Perceived Environmental Pollution Threats; MU = Media Use; PB = Pro-Environmental Behavior; PC = Pro-Environmental Contextual Forces.

Discriminant Validity

This study used the average variance extracted (AVE) method to assess discriminant validity. Fornell and Larcker (1981) suggest that the square root of AVE for each construct should be greater than the correlation coefficients between the pairs of variables, indicating discriminant validity among the constructs. In this study, most of the AVE values were greater than the squared correlation coefficients, indicating that the results have discriminant validity (Table 6).

Table 6.

Discriminant Validity

Construct	AVE	EC	EK	EP	MU	PB	PC
EC	0.746	0.864
EK	0.750	0.624	0.866
EP	0.726	0.660	0.636	0.852
MU	0.754	0.743	0.685	0.667	0.868
PB	0.748	0.641	0.689	0.634	0.713	0.865
PC	0.699	0.697	0.736	0.717	0.696	0.775	0.836

Note. The bolded values on the diagonal represent the square root of AVE (average variance extracted); the values off the diagonal represent the correlation coefficients between each pair. EC = Environmental Concern; EK = Environmental Knowledge; EP = Perceived Environmental Pollution Threats; MU = Media Use; PB = Pro-Environmental Behavior; PC = Pro-Environmental Contextual Forces.

Structural Equation Model

Goodness of Fit

√Communality × Explained Variance = √Redundancy. Goodness of Fit (GOF) is a global indicator of model fit, with 0.1 indicating weak fit, 0.25 indicating moderate fit, and 0.36 indicating strong fit (Vinzi et al., 2010). The GOF of this study’s results is 0.636, indicating moderate to high fit.

Structural Model Analysis

The results of the path analysis in this study are presented in Table 7.

Table 7.

Path Analysis Results.

Path relationships	Original sample (O)	Standard deviation (STDEV)	t-Values (\|O/STDEV\|)	p-Values	R ²
EC → PC	0.258	0.060	4.277	.000	.678
EK → PC	0.382	0.075	5.090	.000
EP → PC	0.304	0.076	3.995	.000
MU → EC	0.743	0.038	19.423	.000	.553
MU → EK	0.685	0.050	13.605	.000	.470
MU → EP	0.667	0.053	12.566	.000	.445
PC → PB	0.775	0.042	18.591	.000	.601

Environmental Concern has a path coefficient of 0.258; Standard Deviation of 0.060; (t-value is 4.277, p-value .000 < .05), indicating a significant effect of Environmental Concern on Pro-Environmental Contextual Forces.

Environmental Knowledge has a path coefficient of 0.382; Standard Deviation of 0.075; (t-value is 5.090, p-value .000 < .05), indicating a significant effect of Environmental Knowledge on Pro-Environmental Contextual Forces.

Perceived Environmental Pollution Threats has a path coefficient of 0.304; Standard Deviation of 0.076; (t-value is 3.995, p-value .000 < .05), indicating a significant effect of Perceived Environmental Pollution Threats on Pro-Environmental Contextual Forces.

Media Use has a path coefficient of 0.743; Standard Deviation of 0.038; (t-value is 19.423, p-value .000 < .05), indicating a significant effect of Media Use on Environmental Concern.

Media Use has a path coefficient of 0.685; Standard Deviation of 0.050; (t-value is 13.605, p-value .000 < .05), indicating a significant effect of Media Use on Environmental Knowledge.

Media Use has a path coefficient of 0.667; Standard Deviation of 0.053; (t-value is 12.566, p-value .000 < .05), indicating a significant effect of Media Use on Perceived Environmental Pollution Threats.

Pro-Environmental Contextual Forces has a path coefficient of 0.775; Standard Deviation of 0.042; (t-value is 18.591, p-value .000 < .05), indicating a significant effect of Pro-Environmental Contextual Forces on Pro-Environmental Behavior.

Regarding explanatory power (which is a primary indicator of model goodness; Chin, 1998), R² values greater than .67 indicate high explanatory power, R² values greater than around .33 indicate moderate explanatory power, and R² values greater than around .19 indicate low explanatory power (Chin, 1998; Ringle et al., 2015).

Pro-Environmental Contextual Forces has an R² value of .678, Environmental Concern has an R² value of .553, Environmental Knowledge has an R² value of .470, Perceived Environmental Pollution Threats has an R² value of .445, and Pro-Environmental Behavior has an R² value of .601, all indicating moderate to high explanatory power.

The results of Table 5 are presented in a model diagram, as shown in Figure 3, providing a more intuitive display of the PLS statistical results of this study.

Figure 3.

PLS statistical model diagram.

Mediating Effect

Media Use → Environmental Knowledge → Pro-Environmental Contextual Forces, t-value of 4.497 > 1.96, and p-value of .000 < .05, indicating the presence of a mediating effect.

Media Use → Environmental Concern → Pro-Environmental Contextual Forces, t-value of 4.032 > 1.96, and p-value of .000 < .05, indicating the presence of a mediating effect.

Media Use → Perceived Environmental Pollution Threats → Pro-Environmental Contextual Forces, t-value of 3.517 > 1.96, and p-value of .000 < .05, indicating the presence of a mediating effect.

Table 8 shows the results of mediating effects.

Table 8.

Analysis of Mediating Effects.

Mediating effect	Original sample (O)	Standard deviation (STDEV)	t-Values (\|O/STDEV\|)	p-Values
MU → EK → PC	0.262	0.058	4.497	.000
MU → EC → PC	0.192	0.048	4.032	.000
MU → EP → PC	0.203	0.058	3.517	.000

Note. EC = Environmental Concern; EK = Environmental Knowledge; EP = Perceived Environmental Pollution Threats; MU = Media Use; PC = Pro-Environmental Contextual Forces.

Moderating Effects

Moderating Effect (Place Attachment × Perceived Environmental pollution threats) on Pro-Environmental Contextual Forces is 0.082 (t-value = 1.099 < 1.96, p = .272 < .05), indicating that there is no significant moderation effect.

Moderating Effect (Place Attachment × Environmental Knowledge) on Pro-Environmental Contextual Forces is −0.016 (t-value = 0.272 < 1.96, p = .786 < .05), indicating that there is no significant moderation effect.

Moderating Effect (Place Attachment × Environmental Concern) on Pro-Environmental Contextual Forces is −0.276 (t-value = 4.906 > 1.96, p = .000 < .05), indicating that there is a significant moderation effect.

Moderating Effect (Place Attachment × Pro-Environmental Contextual Forces) on Pro-Environmental Behavior is −0.317 (t-value = 4.472 > 1.96, p = .000 < 0.05), indicating that there is a significant moderation effect.

Table 9 shows the results of moderating effects.

Table 9.

The Analysis of Moderating Effects.

Moderating effects	Original sample (O)	Standard deviation (STDEV)	t-Values	p-Values
PA × EP → PC	0.082	0.074	1.099	.272
PA × EK → PC	−0.016	0.060	0.272	.786
PA × EC → PC	−0.276	0.056	4.906	.000
PA × PC → PB	−0.317	0.071	4.472	.000

Note. EC = Environmental Concern; EK = Environmental Knowledge; EP = Perceived Environmental Pollution Threats; PB = Pro-Environmental Behavior; PC = Pro-Environmental Contextual Forces.

The intersecting lines in the diagram indicate the presence of a moderating effect. Figure 4 shows that place attachment successfully moderates the impact of environmental concern on pro-environmental contextual forces. Figure 5 demonstrates that place attachment successfully moderates the influence of pro-environmental contextual forces on pro-environmental behavior.

Figure 4.

The moderating effect of Place Attachment (PA) × Environmental Concern (EC) on Pro-Environmental Contextual Forces (PC).

Figure 5.

The moderating effect of Place Attachment (PA) × Pro-Environmental Contextual Forces (PC) on Pro-Environmental Behavior (PB).

Conclusion and Discussion

This study primarily investigates the influence of media use on pro-environmental responses in the context of tourism. By integrating factors such as “media use” and employing mediating variables including “perceived environmental pollution threats,”“environmental knowledge,” and “environmental concern,” the study examines their impact on “pro-environmental contextual forces” and subsequently on “pro-environmental behavior.” A research framework and corresponding hypotheses were proposed, and data were collected through a questionnaire survey. The proposed model and hypotheses were tested using structural equation modeling to validate the findings.

Academic Contribution

Impact of Media Use on Perceived Environmental Threats, Environmental Knowledge, and Environmental Concern

This study examines the relationships between media usage and environmental threat perception, environmental knowledge, and environmental concern. The findings indicate that media usage positively influences these factors. Consistent with previous literature, the results confirm that media usage significantly enhances environmental knowledge, particularly in explaining environmental issues and their solutions. Hansen (2013) and Newman and Dale (2007) point out that traditional and social media effectively increase public environmental concern by providing consistent and credible environmental information and fostering interactive participation, especially by emphasizing the relationship between humans and nature and a sense of responsibility (Y. Wu et al., 2018). Similarly, Zhao (2009) and P. Liu et al. (2021) highlight the significant role of media, especially online media, in disseminating environmental knowledge, such as promoting scientific understanding of climate change and pollution. Moreover, the interactivity of social media enhances the efficiency of knowledge dissemination (Y. Liu & Li, 2021). Rogers (1975) and Dong et al. (2018) also note that media amplifies public perception of environmental threats, such as climate change, pollution, and ecological degradation, particularly in raising awareness of the personal impact of pollution (Ding et al., 2018). These findings suggest that modern society’s high dependence on media has led to greater attention to its coverage of environmental and public issues. Scholars believe that media provides a virtual window for people to access previously unseen natural environments, fostering environmental awareness, and promoting conservation behavior.

A comparison of the effects on Environmental Concern (EC), Environmental Knowledge (EK), and Perceived Environmental Pollution Threats (EP) reveals that the impact on Environmental Concern is the strongest, indicating that media is most effective in enhancing public emotional engagement and sense of responsibility toward environmental issues. The effect on environmental knowledge is the second strongest, suggesting that media plays a significant role in disseminating environmental knowledge, though its impact is less pronounced than on environmental concern. The effect on perceived environmental pollution threats is the weakest, indicating that media is relatively less effective in strengthening individual awareness of specific pollution threats. This implies that while media has substantial potential to enhance public emotions and knowledge, its role in promoting awareness of specific threats may require supplementary interventions, such as field education or direct experiences.

The Influence of Perceived Environmental Pollution Threats, Environmental Knowledge, and Environmental Concern on Pro-Environmental Contextual Forces

The results of this study confirm that environmental knowledge, pollution threat perception, and environmental concern all have a significant positive impact on pro-environmental contextual forces. Among them, environmental knowledge exerts the greatest influence, indicating that an individual’s mastery of environmental knowledge significantly enhances their perception of external environmental support. Pollution threat perception ranks second, showing that the sensitivity to external contextual factors is influenced to some extent by perceived threats. Environmental concern has the least influence, suggesting that individuals’ emotions and values have a relatively weaker impact on contextual factors.

Environmental knowledge directly influences individuals’ understanding of environmental issues, helping them recognize and perceive external support factors such as policies or infrastructure. Hobson (2003) and Brunswicker and Chesbrough (2018) emphasized the importance of knowledge in promoting pro-environmental behavior, consistent with the study’s findings, which highlight that adequate information increases sensitivity to contextual support. While previous literature often focuses on the application of knowledge in specific actions, this study emphasizes its impact on external contextual support factors.

The strength of individuals’ perceptions of pollution threats directly affects their demand for and sensitivity to external support factors. According to Protection Motivation Theory (PMT; Keshavarz & Karami, 2016), the higher the perceived threat intensity, the more likely protective behavior will be triggered. However, as a highly situational factor, the influence of threat perception may be less stable than that of knowledge. Keshavarz and Karami (2016) and Dong et al. (2018) confirmed the significant impact of threat perception on protective behaviors, and this study similarly demonstrates its significant effect on pro-environmental contextual forces. However, prior research has predominantly focused on the direct relationship between threat perception and individual behavior.

Environmental concern represents individuals’ attitudes and value orientations, with a more indirect influence that is often reflected in behavior choices emphasizing environmental importance. Nordlund and Garvill (2002) noted that high environmental concern does not necessarily translate into action, especially when such actions involve high costs or sacrifices, which may explain its weaker influence. Borg et al. (2020) suggested that environmental concern can promote cooperation and participation, a relationship that this study also confirms. However, previous literature also points out that high concern does not necessarily lead to more action (Nordlund & Garvill, 2002), explaining the relatively low impact of environmental concern observed in this study.

This study broadly defines contextual support as encompassing legal, social, and technological dimensions, which may have increased the pivotal role of knowledge in relation to these factors, whereas prior literature tends to focus more on the correlation with single-dimensional factors. By expanding the research to include sensitivity to external contextual factors, this study contributes to the field by addressing an area less emphasized in existing literature.

Impact of Pro-Environmental Contextual Forces on Pro-Environmental Behavior

This study demonstrates a direct positive influence of pro-environmental contextual forces on pro-environmental behavior, in line with the conceptual framework of the broken windows theory. This highlights the active role that pro-environmental contextual forces play in driving pro-environmental behavior at tourist destinations.

The findings of this study align with the Broken Windows Theory (Kelling & Wilson, 1982), which suggests that clean and orderly environments promote positive behaviors, while chaotic environments inhibit them. Well-maintained pro-environmental contextual factors, such as clean tourist facilities and effective environmental policies, reduce both psychological and practical barriers for tourists to engage in pro-environmental actions, thereby encouraging positive behaviors. This study focuses on behaviors in specific tourism contexts, making the direct impact of contextual forces on behavior more evident. The Broken Windows Theory emphasizes that good environmental conditions facilitate positive behaviors, and the results of this study confirm the significant influence of contextual factors on pro-environmental behaviors (Lang et al., 2010; J. S. Wu et al., 2021). For instance, Wu et al. found that attractive ecological park environments enhance tourists’ intentions to act responsibly. However, while the Broken Windows Theory is typically applied to the prevention of destructive behaviors, this study extends its application to positive behaviors, particularly in promoting pro-environmental actions within tourism contexts.

Similar to previous research findings, such as Lee’s study, which demonstrated that exposure to environmental information can enhance values and protective behaviors, this study also found that contextual forces (e.g., environmental education or promotion) can directly influence behavior. Steg and Vlek (2009) proposed that the lack of alternative transportation options and other contextual constraints can inhibit pro-environmental behaviors. This study supports the view that contextual forces are critical determinants of behavioral decision-making. The results of this study are consistent with the literature, all of which confirm the significant role of contextual forces in promoting pro-environmental behavior and support the environmental-behavior linkage proposed by the Broken Windows Theory. While the literature often defines contextual forces narrowly (e.g., transportation or education), this study incorporates multi-dimensional contextual forces (e.g., social, policy, and infrastructure factors), making their influence more pronounced.

Mediating Effects of Environmental Threat Perception, Environmental Knowledge, and Environmental Concern on Media Use and Pro-Environmental Contextual Forces

This study explores how media use (MU) influences pro-environmental contextual forces (PC) through three mediating variables: perceived environmental pollution threats (EP), environmental knowledge (EK), and environmental concern (EC). Among these, environmental knowledge (EK) has the most significant mediating effect, followed by environmental concern (EC), with perceived environmental pollution threats (EP) having the least impact.

The findings of this study align with previous literature (Zhao, 2009; Z. Li, 2021), which highlights that media serves as an important channel for disseminating environmental knowledge, particularly in enhancing understanding of environmental infrastructure and policies. The literature (Hansen, 2013; Y. Wu et al., 2018) suggests that the emotional appeals and consistent information provided by the media can enhance individuals’ environmental concern, which is consistent with the results of this study. Additionally, the literature (Dong et al., 2018) emphasizes that media can increase awareness of environmental threats, such as the consequences of pollution and climate change, a viewpoint supported by this study’s findings.

The Influence of Place Attachment on Environmental Threat Perception, Environmental Knowledge, Environmental Concern, and Pro-Environmental Behavior

This study found that place attachment did not show a significant moderating effect on the relationship between perceived environmental pollution threats and environmental knowledge with pro-environmental behavior. However, place attachment exhibited a significant negative moderating effect on the relationships between environmental concern and pro-environmental behavior, as well as pro-environmental contextual forces and pro-environmental behavior. This indicates that while place attachment can play a positive role in certain contexts, it may also weaken the influence of other environmental factors on pro-environmental behavior under specific conditions. Regarding the moderating effect of place attachment on perceived pollution threats and environmental knowledge, Scannell and Gifford (2014) suggest that place attachment should enhance individuals’ sensitivity to pollution perception and knowledge, thereby promoting pro-environmental behavior. However, this study did not observe such a significant effect. This might be because tourists are more focused on personal experiences and short-term benefits, with place attachment having a weaker influence on cognitive factors. Secondly, in the moderating effect of place attachment on environmental concern, Carrus et al. (2014) argued that place attachment could prioritize environment-related concerns specific to the place, thereby encouraging pro-environmental behavior. However, this study revealed a negative moderating effect in this relationship. This could be because individuals with high place attachment tend to focus more on specific local interests, neglecting broader environmental protection goals. Lastly, for the moderating effect of place attachment on contextual forces, Kim and Koo (2020) found that place attachment could amplify the positive impact of pro-environmental contextual forces on pro-environmental behavior. Nevertheless, this study discovered that in tourism contexts, individuals with high place attachment might prioritize direct local benefits, thereby weakening the overall influence of contextual factors. This may reflect that tourists with high place attachment are less sensitive to other environmental factors.

In the context of tourism, place attachment tends to be short-term and specific. Tourists are more inclined to focus on local interests directly related to their travel experience, which may diminish their attention to broader environmental issues. Functional attachment (such as whether a place meets their needs) may take precedence over emotional attachment (such as a sense of place identity), leading to the complex effects of place attachment on pro-environmental behavior. While some literature emphasizes place attachment in everyday contexts, this study focuses on the tourism context, highlighting the uniqueness of place attachment in tourist behavior and its potential differences in manifestation.

Practical Implications

The study’s findings suggest three recommended directions for policy enhancement aimed at promoting tourists’ pro-environmental contextual forces and encouraging pro-environmental behavior through media use:

Local Destination Policies: Local destination policies play a pivotal role in shaping tourists’ pro-environmental behavior. To capitalize on the information-rich environment, local governments can leverage various communication channels to disseminate pro-environmental contextual forces. Through online platforms such as tourism websites, social media, and self-media, destinations can provide diverse and engaging information about their ecological conservation efforts. By showcasing their commitment to environmental preservation, destinations can create a positive image that resonates with potential tourists. Additionally, focusing on enhancing natural landscape features, such as public spaces, air quality, water bodies, and architectural elements, can leave a lasting impression on visitors. Utilizing clear and informative public facilities, such as posters, banners, and images, can guide tourists toward environmentally friendly actions. Implementing eco-friendly alternatives like shared bicycles, public transportation, and shuttle services within the scenic area can further encourage pro-environmental behavior and reduce energy consumption.

Education and Awareness Campaigns: Implementing comprehensive education and awareness campaigns can significantly impact tourists’ pro-environmental behavior. By integrating environmental topics into guided tours, workshops, and interactive experiences, destinations can enhance tourists’ understanding of the local ecosystem and the importance of sustainability. Collaborating with environmental experts and organizations can add credibility to these initiatives. Through such efforts, tourists can develop a deeper connection to the destination and a heightened sense of responsibility toward its preservation.

Media Partnerships and Collaborations: To effectively enhance tourists’ environmental knowledge and concern, media should adopt the following specific strategies: Firstly, increase tourists’ sense of identification through localized content. Media can create special reports or short videos that integrate local ecological features and environmental issues, such as showcasing examples of natural landscape conservation or ecological threats at tourist destinations (e.g., water scarcity or waste management challenges). This makes the content more relatable and easier for tourists to understand and connect with. Secondly, enhance engagement through interactive content. Social media platforms can host online environmental knowledge quizzes, virtual tours of ecological attractions, or interactive games, allowing tourists to learn about environmental protection while being entertained. For example, an “Eco Challenge” short video campaign could encourage tourists to upload and share creative content showcasing their eco-friendly practices. Thirdly, focus on emotional storytelling to evoke resonance. Media can use real-life cases, documentaries, or photo exhibitions to illustrate the impact of environmental degradation on wildlife or local residents, arousing emotional connections and a sense of responsibility for environmental protection. For instance, highlighting success stories of endangered species conservation or showcasing the positive changes brought about by pollution control efforts. Lastly, expand outreach through multi-platform collaboration. Media can partner with travel websites, destination management organizations, or environmental organizations to embed concise and impactful environmental messages into travel guides, brochures, or digital screens in public spaces, ensuring broader coverage among tourists. These strategies not only improve tourists’ environmental knowledge but also enhance their environmental concern through emotional triggers and interactive engagement, thereby laying the foundation for promoting pro-environmental behavior.

By following these recommendations, destinations can leverage media’s influence to nurture pro-environmental contextual forces and behaviors among tourists. This dual-purpose approach supports both natural resource preservation and an enhanced tourist experience, aligning with sustainable and responsible tourism principles.

Destination authorities should prioritize the conservation of local attributes, encompassing wildlife, plant life, cultural treasures, and intangible heritage. Concurrently, local governments or tourism entities should craft high-quality promotional content, such as images and videos showcasing unique species. For instance, China’s national treasure, the giant panda, primarily found in Sichuan Province’s mountains and valleys, underscores the value of preservation. Through compelling visuals and promotional materials, the Chinese government has championed panda protection, making it an emblem of Chengdu. This serves as a reminder that neglecting these special species and cultural heritage risks their extinction. Diverse media channels, featuring impactful reports, can underscore this message effectively. Promoting species and cultural heritage conservation heightens awareness and serves as a promotional tool, driving tourism development.

These strategies emphasize environmental consciousness and the need to address environmental threats. Short-term promotional efforts can effectively reinforce the ecological significance, ensuring a harmonious relationship between tourism and nature.

Local attachment is vital in shaping pro-environmental behavior policies. Tourists’ affinity for a destination can be nurtured through evocative mediums like imagery, narratives, verse, and cinematic scenes, triggering emotional bonds. This emotional tethering to a distant place might not solely arise from visiting but could also sprout from lifelong exposure to cultural heritage. For instance, locales like Helan Mountain, West Lake, Mount Hua, and Yueyang Tower have been immortalized in poetry and tales, infusing them with cultural significance that fosters emotional ties and a sense of local identity.

Tourist destination governments should acknowledge the pivotal role of these cultural assets in cultivating local attachment. Thus, when shaping pro-environmental behavior initiatives, policies should deepen tourists’ sense of local affinity by delving into and celebrating the cultural roots and heritage of the area.

Research Limitations and Future Development

Firstly, this study has certain limitations regarding its sample size, as it focuses solely on Chinese tourists, which limits the generalizability of the findings to some extent. Future research should expand the sample scope to include international tourists or groups with diverse cultural and socio-economic backgrounds, enabling cross-cultural comparisons and enhancing the generalizability and applicability of the results.

Secondly, this study primarily explores the impact of media use on pro-environmental behavior but does not fully consider the role of contextual factors such as cultural values, social norms, and economic conditions on environmental attitudes and behaviors. Since cultural and socio-economic backgrounds significantly influence the formation of pro-environmental behavior, future research should incorporate these contextual factors into the analytical framework to provide a more comprehensive understanding and reveal the complex interactions between media, contextual factors, and individual behavior.

Thirdly, this study primarily employs quantitative research methods, using questionnaire surveys and structural equation modeling for analysis. While these methods ensure rigor and systematicity, they do not delve deeply into the motivations and emotional experiences underlying tourists’ pro-environmental behaviors. Future studies could adopt qualitative research methods, such as in-depth interviews, focus groups, or case studies, to explore in greater detail the intrinsic drivers of tourists’ pro-environmental behavior and their complex relationship with media use.

Fourthly, this study focuses on the overall impact of contextual forces but does not analyze specific dimensions such as economic incentives, social infrastructure, or policy regulations. Future research could further explore these specific dimensions of contextual forces to reveal their precise effects on pro-environmental behavior, thereby providing empirical evidence for more targeted interventions.

Lastly, this study focuses on general pro-environmental behavior without distinguishing between private-sphere behaviors and public-sphere behaviors. Private-sphere behaviors typically involve individual actions, such as reducing personal waste, while public-sphere behaviors involve collective or community-level actions, such as participating in local environmental protection initiatives. Future research could investigate the characteristics and influencing factors of these two types of behaviors in specific contexts.

These limitations point to several directions for future research, including expanding the sample scope to encompass diverse populations, incorporating cultural and socio-economic factors into the analytical framework, combining quantitative and qualitative research methods, exploring specific dimensions of contextual forces, and distinguishing the characteristics of different behavioral domains. Addressing these gaps could further enhance the scientific, generalizable, and practical value of research on media use and pro-environmental behavior.

Footnotes

ORCID iDs

Ying Zhang

Hui-Ling Hu

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was supported by the Shaanxi Province Philosophy and Social Science Research Project: Research on the Service Expansion, Cooperative Development Pattern, and Optimization Strategies of Urban-Rural Chain Supermarkets in Shaanxi Province (Project No.: 2023R056).

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Data Availability Statement

The data supporting the findings of this study are openly available in the Zenodo repository at .

References

Angreani

Saefudin

Solihat

(2022). Virtual laboratory based online learning: Improving environmental literacy in high school students. JPBI (Jurnal Pendidikan Biologi Indonesia), 8(1), 10–21.

Arthur

Quester

(2004). Who’s afraid of that ad? Applying segmentation to the protection motivation model. Psychology & Marketing, 21(9), 671–696.

Becken

(2007). Tourists’ perception of international air travel’s impact on the global climate and potential climate change policies. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 15(4), 351–368.

Borg

Lindsay

Curtis

(2020). When news media and social media meet: How Facebook users reacted to news stories about a supermarket plastic bag ban. New Media & Society, 23, 3574–3592.

Brick

Nielsen

K. S.

Berger

Henn

Wolske

K. S.

Lange

Hanss

Bauer

J. M.

Aldoh

Sachisthal

M. S. M.

Johnsen

S. A. K.

Cologna

(2024). Current research practices on pro-environmental behavior: A survey of environmental psychologists. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 97, 102375.

Brown

(2000). Social identity theory: Past achievements, current problems and future challenges. European Journal of Social Psychology, 30(6), 745–778.

Brunswicker

Chesbrough

(2018). The adoption of open innovation in large firms: Practices, measures, and risks. A survey of large firms examines how firms approach open innovation strategically and manage knowledge flows at the project level. Research-Technology Management, 61(1), 35–45.

Carrete

Arroyo

Centeno

(2018). Are brand extensions of healthy products an adequate strategy when there is a high association between the brand and unhealthy products? Revista Brasileira de Gestão de Negócios, 20, 421–442.

Carrus

Scopelliti

Fornara

Bonnes

Bonaiuto

(2014). Place attachment, community identification, and pro-environmental engagement. In Manzo

L. C.

Devine-Wright

(Eds.), Place attachment: Advances in theory, methods and applications (pp. 154–164).

10.

Carvajal-Trujillo

Pérez-Gálvez

J. C.

Orts-Cardador

J. J.

(2024). Exploring tourists’ pro-environmental behavior: a bibliometric analysis over two decades (1999–2023). Journal of Tourism Futures, Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1108/JTF-02-2024-0033

11.

Casaló

L. V.

Escario

J.-J.

Rodriguez-Sanchez

(2019). Analyzing differences between different types of pro-environmental behaviors: Do attitude intensity and type of knowledge matter? Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 149, 56–64.

12.

Cheng

Chen

(2022). The effect of tourism experience on tourists’ environmentally responsible behavior at cultural heritage sites: The mediating role of cultural attachment. Sustainability, 14(1), 565.

13.

Chin

W. W.

(1998). Commentary: Issues and opinion on structural equation modeling. MIS quarterly, vii–xvi.

14.

Ding

Jiang

Liu

Long

Cao

(2018). Factors affecting low-carbon consumption behavior of urban residents: A comprehensive review. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 132, 3–15.

15.

Dong

Zhu

(2018). From source credibility to risk perception: How and when climate information matters to action. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 136, 410–417.

16.

Fakfare

Sangpikul

(2022). Resident perceptions towards COVID-19 public policies for tourism reactivation: The case of Thailand. Journal of Policy Research in Tourism, Leisure and Events, 16, 785–805.

17.

Florido-Benítez

(2024). Constructing Spanish smart destinations: A new guide for the tourism industry. International Journal of Tourism Cities. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJTC-09-2023-0193

18.

Fornell

Larcker

D. F.

(1981). Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics. Sage Publications Sage CA.

19.

Franzen

Meyer

(2010). Environmental attitudes in cross-national perspective: A multilevel analysis of the ISSP 1993 and 2000. European Sociological Review, 26(2), 219–234.

20.

Gao

Bai

Liu

(2021). Which factors influence individual pro-environmental behavior in the tourism context: rationality, affect, or morality? Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 26(5), 516–538.

21.

Gao

Zhao

(2023). A rational-affective-moral factor model for determining tourists’ pro-environmental behaviour. Current Issues in Tourism, 26(13), 2145–2163.

22.

Gkargkavouzi

Halkos

Matsiori

(2019). Environmental behavior in a private-sphere context: Integrating theories of planned behavior and value belief norm, self-identity and habit. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 148, 145–156.

23.

Gosling

Williams

K. J.

(2010). Connectedness to nature, place attachment and conservation behaviour: Testing connectedness theory among farmers. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(3), 298–304.

24.

Gössling

Schumacher

K. P.

(2010). Implementing carbon neutral destination policies: issues from the Seychelles. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 18(3), 377–391.

25.

Ryan

(2008). Place attachment, identity and community impacts of tourism—the case of a Beijing hutong. Tourism Management, 29(4), 637–647.

26.

Guagnano

G. A.

Stern

P. C.

Dietz

(1995). Influences on attitude-behavior relationships: A natural experiment with curbside recycling. Environment and Behavior, 27(5), 699–718.

27.

Guerra

Schmidt

Valente

(2016). Dilemmas of sustainability in turbulent times. In Telešienė

Gross

(Eds.), Green European: Environmental behaviour and attitudes in Europe in a historical and cross-cultural comparative perspective (pp. 221–240). Routledge.

28.

Hair

J. F.

Risher

J. J.

Sarstedt

Ringle

C. M.

(2019). When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. European Business Review, 31(1), 2–24. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-11-2018-0203

29.

Halpenny

E. A.

(2010). Pro-environmental behaviours and park visitors: The effect of place attachment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(4), 409–421.

30.

Hamdan

Basrowi

(2024). Do community entrepreneurial development shape the sustainability of tourist villages? Uncertain Supply Chain Management, 12(1), 373–386.

31.

Han

(2015). Travelers’ pro-environmental behavior in a green lodging context: Converging value-belief-norm theory and the theory of planned behavior. Tourism Management, 47, 164–177.

32.

Hansen

(2013). Media and the environment. Routledge.

33.

S. S.

Liao

Rosenthal

(2015). Applying the theory of planned behavior and media dependency theory: Predictors of public pro-environmental behavioral intentions in Singapore. Environmental Communication, 9(1), 77–99.

34.

Hobson

(2003). Thinking habits into action: the role of knowledge and process in questioning household consumption practices. Local Environment, 8(1), 95–112.

35.

Holbert

R. L.

Kwak

Shah

D. V.

(2003). Environmental concern, patterns of television viewing, and pro-environmental behaviors: Integrating models of media consumption and effects. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 47(2), 177–196.

36.

Holmgren

Kabanshi

Langeborg

Barthel

Colding

Eriksson

Sörqvist

(2019). Deceptive sustainability: Cognitive bias in people’s judgment of the benefits of CO2 emission cuts. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 64, 48–55.

37.

Huang

(2016). Media use, environmental beliefs, self-efficacy, and pro-environmental behavior. Journal of Business Research, 69(6), 2206–2212.

38.

Hui

Raza

S. H.

Khan

S. W.

Zaman

Ogadimma

E. C.

(2023). Exploring regenerative tourism using media richness theory: Emerging role of immersive journalism, metaverse-based promotion, eco-literacy, and pro-environmental behavior. Sustainability, 15(6), 5046.

39.

Jaffar

Latiff

A. R. A.

(2024). Pro-environmental conservation behavior through the lens of norm activation model: A systematic review (2018–2023). Paper Asia, 40(2b), 1–11.

40.

Karahan

Roehrig

(2015). Constructing media artifacts in a social constructivist environment to enhance students’ environmental awareness and activism. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 24, 103-118.

41.

Kelling

G. L.

Wilson

J. Q.

(1982). Broken windows. Atlantic Monthly, 249(3), 29–38.

42.

Keshavarz

Karami

(2016). Farmers’ pro-environmental behavior under drought: Application of protection motivation theory. Journal of Arid Environments, 127, 128–136.

43.

Kim

Koo

D.-W.

(2020). Visitors’ pro-environmental behavior and the underlying motivations for natural environment: Merging dual concern theory and attachment theory. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 56, 102147.

44.

Kim

Thapa

(2018). Perceived value and flow experience: Application in a nature-based tourism context. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 8, 373–384.

45.

Lang

D. L.

Salazar

L. F.

Crosby

R. A.

DiClemente

R. J.

Brown

L. K.

Donenberg

G. R.

(2010). Neighborhood environment, sexual risk behaviors and acquisition of sexually transmitted infections among adolescents diagnosed with psychological disorders. American Journal of Community Psychology, 46, 303–311.

46.

Lazarus

R. S.

Averill

J. R.

Opton

E. M.

(1970). Towards a cognitive theory of emotion. Feelings and Emotions: The Loyola Symposium (pp. 207–232). Academic Press.

47.

Lee

(2011). The role of media exposure, social exposure and biospheric value orientation in the environmental attitude-intention-behavior model in adolescents. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 31(4), 301–308.

48.

Lewicka

(2011). Place attachment: How far have we come in the last 40 years? Journal of Environmental Psychology, 31(3), 207–230.

49.

Lee

T. J.

Chen

Park

K.-S.

(2023). Pro-environmental behaviour of the residents in sensitive tourism destinations. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 29(2), 291–308.

50.

(2021). Role of affective mediators in the effects of media use on proenvironmental behavior. Science Communication, 43(1), 64–90.

51.

Liu

Han

Teng

(2021). The influence of Internet use on pro-environmental behaviors: An integrated theoretical framework. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 164, 105162.

52.

Liu

(2021). Pro-environmental behavior predicted by media exposure, SNS involvement, and cognitive and normative factors. Environmental Communication, 15(7), 954–968.

53.

Loureiro

S. M. C.

(2014). The role of the rural tourism experience economy in place attachment and behavioral intentions. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 40, 1–9.

54.

Mehrabian

Russell

J. A.

(1974). An approach to environmental psychology. The MIT Press.

55.

Zhang

Qiao

(2024). Knowledge mapping analysis of pro-environmental behaviors: Research hotspots, trends and frontiers. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 26, 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-024-05046-x

56.

Newman

Dale

(2007). Homophily and agency: Creating effective sustainable development networks. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 9, 7990.

57.

Nonthapot

Lattanasouvannaphonh

Sifongxay

Bounpathaph

Wuttipan

(2024). Water tourism demand in the Mekong River basin. Uncertain Supply Chain Management, 12(1), 333–344.

58.

Nordlund

A. M.

Garvill

(2002). Value structures behind proenvironmental behavior. Environment and Behavior, 34(6), 740–756.

59.

Nunnally

J. C.

(1978). An overview of psychological measurement. In Wolman

B. B.

(Ed.), Clinical diagnosis of mental disorders (pp. 97–146). Plenum Press.

60.

O’Connor

R. E.

Bard

R. J.

Fisher

(1999). Risk perceptions, general environmental beliefs, and willingness to address climate change. Risk Analysis, 19(3), 461–471.

61.

Otto

Pensini

(2017). Nature-based environmental education of children: Environmental knowledge and connectedness to nature, together, are related to ecological behaviour. Global Environmental Change, 47, 88–94.

62.

Pagiaslis

Krontalis

A. K.

(2014). Green consumption behavior antecedents: Environmental concern, knowledge, and beliefs. Psychology & Marketing, 31(5), 335–348.

63.

Patwardhan

Ribeiro

M. A.

Woosnam

K. M.

Payini

Mallya

(2020). Visitors’ loyalty to religious tourism destinations: Considering place attachment, emotional experience and religious affiliation. Tourism Management Perspectives, 36, 100737.

64.

Potter

W. J.

(2014). A critical analysis of cultivation theory. Journal of Communication, 64(6), 1015–1036.

65.

Qin

Hsu

C. H.

(2022). Urban travelers’ pro-environmental behaviors: Composition and role of pro-environmental contextual force. Tourism Management, 92, 104561.

66.

Lyu

(2019). Motivational place attachment dimensions and the pro-environmental behaviour intention of mass tourists: A moderated mediation model. Current Issues in Tourism, 22(2), 197–217.

67.

Ringle

C. M.

Wende

Becker

J.-M.

(2015). SmartPLS 3. SmartPLS GmbH, Boenningstedt. Journal of Service Science and Management, 10(3), 32–49.

68.

Rogers

R. W.

(1975). A protection motivation theory of fear appeals and attitude change1. The Journal of Psychology, 91(1), 93–114.

69.

Scannell

Gifford

(2014). Comparing the theories of interpersonal and place attachment. In Manzo

L. C.

Devine-Wright

(Eds.), Place attachment: Advances in theory, methods, and applications (pp. 23–36). Routledge.

70.

Schanes

Dobernig

Goezet

(2018). Food waste matters: A systematic review of household food waste practices and their policy implications. Journal of Cleaner Production, 182, 978–991.

71.

Schmitt

M. T.

Aknin

L. B.

Axsen

Shwom

R. L.

(2018). Unpacking the relationships between pro-environmental behavior, life satisfaction, and perceived ecological threat. Ecological Economics, 143, 130–140.

72.

Schultz

P. W.

(2001). The structure of environmental concern: Concern for self, other people, and the biosphere. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21(4), 327–339.

73.

Song

Zhang

(2022). Research on the impact of public climate policy cognition on low-carbon travel based on SOR theory: Evidence from China. Energy, 261, 125192.

74.

Steg

Vlek

(2009). Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: An integrative review and research agenda. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29(3), 309–317.

75.

Stern

P. C.

Dietz

Abel

Guagnano

G. A.

Kalof

(1999). A value-belief-norm theory of support for social movements: The case of environmentalism. Human Ecology Review, 6(2), 81–97.

76.

Stern

P. C.

Dietz

Guagnano

G. A.

(1995). The new ecological paradigm in social-psychological context. Environment and Behavior, 27(6), 723–743.

77.

Stern

P. C.

Oskamp

(1987). Managing scarce environmental resources (Vol. 2). Wiley.

78.

Stitt

M. E.

(2023). “Broken windows” discipline and racial disparities in school punishment. Punishment & Society, 25(1), 241–263.

79.

Sun

Chen

P.-J.

Ren

Shih

E. H.-W.

Wang

N.-H.

(2021). Place attachment to pseudo establishments: An application of the stimulus-organism-response paradigm to themed hotels. Journal of Business Research, 129, 484–494.

80.

UN_Environment_Programme. (2015). The 10YFP programme on sustainable tourism. https://www.unep.org/resources/making-peace-nature?gclid=CjwKCAjwivemBhBhEiwAJxNWN40Bk7YZP3NZnWt6VdWELc-MzouNqRsa7CnCJgOqYDCuvUwmRjFf5hoCgswQAvD_BwE

81.

Vainio

Paloniemi

(2014). The complex role of attitudes toward science in pro-environmental consumption in the Nordic countries. Ecological Economics, 108, 18–27.

82.

Vinzi

V. E.

Trinchera

Amato

(2010). PLS path modeling: from foundations to recent developments and open issues for model assessment and improvement. In Esposito Vinzi

Chin

W. W.

Henseler

Wang

(Eds.), Handbook of partial least squares (pp. 47–82). Springer.

83.

Walker

Leviston

Price

Devine-Wright

(2015). Responses to a worsening environment: relative deprivation mediates between place attachments and behaviour. European Journal of Social Psychology, 45(7), 833–846.

84.

J. S.

Font

Liu

(2021). The elusive impact of pro-environmental intention on holiday on pro-environmental behaviour at home. Tourism Management, 85, 104283.

85.

Xie

Huang

S. L.

Yuan

Liu

(2018). Using social media to strengthen public awareness of wildlife conservation. Ocean & Coastal Management, 153, 76–83.

86.

Han

(2019). The influence of place attachment on pro-environmental behaviors: The moderating effect of social media. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(24), 5100.

87.

Yang

Wang

Guo

Shi

(2023). How does destination psychological ownership affect tourists’ pro-environmental behaviors? A moderated mediation analysis. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 31(6), 1394–1412.

88.

Xuan

Cam

Van

Thang

Ngoc

Thi

(2024). Consumption decisions in green tourism: The case of tourists participating in sports events in Vietnam. Decision Science Letters, 13(1), 191–196.

89.

Lei

Wang

(2019). Temperature effects on mortality and household adaptation: Evidence from China. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 96, 195–212.

90.

Zebardast

Radaei

(2022). The influence of global crises on reshaping pro-environmental behavior, case study: The COVID-19 pandemic. Science of the total environment, 811, 151436.

91.

Zhang

Wang

(2022). Rural place attachment and urban community integration of Chinese older adults in rural-to-urban relocation. Ageing & Society, 42(6), 1299–1317.

92.

Zhang

Huang

Mao

Jiao

(2024). Decoding determinants of pro-environmental behaviors of higher education students: insights for sustainable future. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-03-2024-0166

93.

Zhang

Hao

Z.-N.

(2018). Does environmental pollution affect labor supply? An empirical analysis based on 112 cities in China. Journal of cleaner production, 190, 378–387.

94.

Zhao

(2009). Media use and global warming perceptions: A snapshot of the reinforcing spirals. Communication Research, 36(5), 698–723.