Content uploaded by Hongliang Qiu
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Hongliang Qiu on Sep 27, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rsus20
Journal of Sustainable Tourism
ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rsus20
From ownership to responsibility: extending the
theory of planned behavior to predict tourist
environmentally responsible behavioral intentions
Hongliang Qiu, Xiongzhi Wang, Alastair M. Morrison, Catherine Kelly & Wei
Wei
To cite this article: Hongliang Qiu, Xiongzhi Wang, Alastair M. Morrison, Catherine Kelly & Wei
Wei (2022): From ownership to responsibility: extending the theory of planned behavior to predict
tourist environmentally responsible behavioral intentions, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, DOI:
10.1080/09669582.2022.2116643
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2022.2116643
View supplementary material
Published online: 26 Aug 2022.
Submit your article to this journal
View related articles
View Crossmark data
From ownership to responsibility: extending the theory of
planned behavior to predict tourist environmentally
responsible behavioral intentions
Hongliang Qiu
a,b
, Xiongzhi Wang
c
, Alastair M. Morrison
d
, Catherine Kelly
d
and
Wei Wei
e
a
School of Business Administration, Tourism College of Zhejiang, Hangzhou, P. R. China;
b
Zhejiang
Academy of Culture & Tourism Development, Hangzhou, P. R. China;
c
Centre for Communication and Social
Change, School of Communication and Arts, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia;
d
School of Management and Marketing, Greenwich Business School, University of Greenwich, Old Royal
Naval College, Greenwich, London, UK;
e
Rosen College of Hospitality Management, University of Central
Florida, Orlando, FL, USA
ABSTRACT
This research adopts the view that tourists can feel destinations belong
to them emotionally (destination psychological ownership). An owner-
ship route for promoting tourist environmentally responsible behavioral
intentions (TERBI) is examined based on the theory of planned behavior,
with perceived environmental responsibility and place attachment as
mediators. Data were collected from two samples in Hangzhou: Gen Z
(n¼549) and older generations (n¼547). The results showed that des-
tination psychological ownership is not directly related to TERBI; per-
ceived environmental responsibility and place attachment mediate the
relationship between destination psychological ownership and TERBI.
Place attachment is the most critical mediating variable. The levels of
TERBI are significantly lower among Gen Z tourists; however, the effect
of subjective norms on TERBI is stronger for Gen Z than for other gener-
ations. This research provides theoretical and managerial implications to
understand better the role of destination psychological ownership in
facilitating TERBI.
ARTICLE HISTORY
Received 28 February 2022
Accepted 16 August 2022
KEYWORDS
Tourist environmentally
responsible behavioral
intentions (TERBI); theory of
planned behavior (TPB);
destination psychological
ownership; perceived
environmental responsibil-
ity; place attachment;
Generation Z
Introduction
Sustainable tourism development needs to weigh the social, economic, cultural, and environmen-
tal benefits against the costs of tourism development (Hall, 2019). However, research suggests
that the tourism sector is falling somewhat behind in realizing its potential to achieve the
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (e.g. Hall, 2019; Scott et al., 2016,2019; Seyfi et al., 2022),
and primarily SDG 15 (i.e. protect, restore, and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems,
sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation and
halt biodiversity loss) to ensure environmental protection. Environmental protection in tourism
destinations is critical for sustainable tourism development (Qiu et al., 2022b). Since negative
environmental consequences on destinations are partially caused by tourist behavior (Wu et al.,
2021b), changing adverse behaviors into sustainable ones can have critical impacts on the
CONTACT Hongliang Qiu qiuhongliang1127@163.com School of Business Administration, Tourism College of
Zhejiang, Hangzhou 311231, P. R. China.
Supplemental data for this article can be accessed online at https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2022.2116643.
ß2022 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE TOURISM
https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2022.2116643
environmental sustainability of tourism (Dolnicar et al., 2019). Therefore, this raises the question
of how to mitigate adverse behaviors better and promote environmentally responsible behaviors
(Su & Swanson, 2017).
The previous literature has paid considerable attention to the antecedents of tourist environ-
mentally responsible behavioral intentions (hereafter, TERBI) (e.g. Wang et al., 2020). Various
guiding frameworks, such as the theory of planned behavior (TPB), norm activation model
(NAM), and value-belief-norm theory (VBN), are extensively applied to understand the characteris-
tics of TERBI (e.g. Qiu et al., 2018). Among these theories, TPB is one of the most prominent and
widely used social-psychological models for explaining focal behaviors (e.g. Loureiro et al., 2022;
Zheng et al., 2022a). Despite an extensive application of TPB, researchers, including its founder
Ajzen (1991), have underlined that the theory is open for model extension, either by introducing
additional predictors or modifying causal links in specific scenarios. The validity of extending TPB
with other theories (e.g. NAM or VBN) or variables in predicting specific behaviors is widely sup-
ported (e.g. Han & Hyun, 2017; Woosnam et al., 2022).
While this stream of scholarly investigations is insightful, TERBI research to date follows a
host-guest dichotomy embedded in the dominant paradigm of tourism research (Bimonte &
Punzo, 2016). Tourists are generally treated as guests who travel away from home to the host
destination, usually for hedonic purposes (Qiu et al., 2022b). Under this paradigm, scholars focus
more on intervention factors or message frames that promote voluntary yet often reactive
actions to protect natural environments when being a destination guest (Liu et al., 2019; Qin &
Luo, 2022; Su & Swanson, 2017). However, a new understanding of tourists as invited hosts
should be adopted to facilitate their proactive uptake of TERBI. By “invite hosts,”tourists develop
a mindset that the destination is treated as psychologically “mine”(Zhang & Xu, 2019).
The nascent literature applies the psychological ownership concept from the organizational
setting to the tourism sphere and proposes a novel concept, i.e. destination psychological own-
ership, to capture tourists’sense of ownership of destinations (e.g. Li et al., 2020). This ownership
route to promote TERBI is essential given that people will be more proactive in engaging in
environmental actions when they feel psychological ownership in destinations (Wang et al.,
2022). Supporting this theoretical argument, Li et al. (2020) found that destination psychological
ownership relates positively to pro-environmental behaviors. Although TPB is predominately a
rationally driven model, it is crucial to consider emotional factors as well. Therefore, destination
psychological ownership (i.e. the destination is perceived as emotionally mine) might be an
effective supplement to the TPB in explaining TERBI.
An unresolved issue is to explore how destination psychological ownership might leverage its
power in eliciting TERBI (Li et al., 2020). Some prior studies in other research domains suggest
the potential mediating roles of perceived responsibility and place attachment. Peck et al. (2021)
found that the impact of priming people’s psychological ownership toward nature enhanced
stewardship efforts toward public goods was mediated by consumers’perceived responsibility
toward the environment. Zhang and Xu (2019) demonstrated that residents’protective behavior
is indirectly influenced by destination psychological ownership via the mediation of place attach-
ment. Therefore, it is worthwhile to consider whether perceived environmental responsibility and
place attachment also mediate the link between destination psychological ownership and subse-
quent TERBI.
Additionally, levels and predictors of TERBI may differ between Generation Z (Gen Z) and
older generations. Gen Z includes people born between 1995 and 2009 (Goh & Lee, 2018), while
older generations are individuals born before 1995. The intent in this research was to capture
the unique TERBI attributes of Gen Z compared to other generations. Gen Z members are
assumed to have a keen interest in sustainable development and social responsibility and tend
to get more involved in environmental protection activities (Dabija et al., 2020). The specific
question to be addressed is: Are there significant differences between Gen Z and older genera-
tions regarding levels of TERBI and its antecedents?
2 H. QIU ET AL.
To address the literature gaps, this research: 1) examined how destination psychological own-
ership exerts an impact on TERBI via an extended TPB model; 2) tested the mediating roles of
perceived environmental responsibility and place attachment; and 3) explored whether there are
differences in the magnitude and predictors of TERBI between Gen Z and older generations. The
findings reveal how an ownership route (destination psychological ownership) functions to culti-
vate TERBI. They offer practical implications for destination managers in appealing to destination
ownership feelings, promoting sustainable tourism, and achieving sustainable develop-
ment goals.
Literature review and hypothesis development
Tourist environmentally responsible behavior (TERB)
Environmentally responsible behavior is also labeled as pro-environmental, eco-friendly, environ-
mentally friendly, or green behavior (Kiatkawsin & Han, 2017). Despite the different wording,
these concepts are used interchangeably, with a common emphasis on individuals’positive
behaviors that contribute to protecting the natural environment (Qiu et al., 2018; Wang &
Zhang, 2020). Environmentally responsible behavior represents tourist actions that either reduce
or avoid the destruction of environmental resources in destinations (Su et al., 2020). Scholars
have utilized numerous theoretical frameworks, including the theory of planned behavior (TPB),
norm activation model, value-belief-norm theory, place attachment theory, and stimulus-organ-
ism-response theory (Qiu et al., 2018; Wu et al., 2021a); among which, TPB is one of the most
applied frameworks to explain and understand predictors of TERB (e.g. Esfandiar et al., 2022;
Zheng et al., 2022a).
Theory of planned behavior
The theory of planned behavior (TPB) originally stems from the theory of reasoned action and
has been widely applied to explore various individual behaviors (Erul & Woosnam, 2022). An indi-
viduals’behavioral intentions are a central factor in the basic TPB model (Erul et al., 2020), in
which three influential independent predictors (attitudes toward the behavior, subjective norms,
and perceived behavioral control) (Ajzen, 1991). TPB and its expanded models have been suc-
cessfully examined in a series of tourism contexts (Erul et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2020). TPB is the
most frequently used theory in previous articles on pro-environmental behavior (Loureiro et al.,
2022). Accordingly, this research uses TPB as an essential and feasible theoretical framework for
predicting TERBI.
Links among constructs within the theory of planned behavior
Attitudes toward a behavior are “the degree to which a person has a favorable or unfavorable
evaluation or appraisal of the behavior in question”(Ajzen, 1991, p.188). The link between atti-
tudes toward behavior and behavioral intentions has been widely supported in prior studies
(Erul & Woosnam, 2022). This logic can be explained as follows: A favorable attitude derived
from clear expectations generates a positive motivation influencing specific behavioral intention,
whereas unfavorable expectations lead to avoidance of behavioral intentions (Wong et al., 2021).
Attitudes toward the behavior are an influential antecedent of tourist pro-environmental behav-
ioral intentions (Han, 2015). Therefore, this study hypothesized that:
H
1
: Attitudes toward a behavior directly and positively influence TERBI.
Subjective norms are “the perceived social pressure to perform or not to perform the behav-
ior”(Ajzen, 1991, p. 188). They represent socially acceptable behaviors or normative beliefs that
JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE TOURISM 3
community members consider valid and conventional (Wong et al., 2021). Individuals are inclined
to adhere to subjective norms by listening to and acting according to ideas from others (Meng
& Choi, 2016) because subjective norms reflect things that are acceptable, right, and of good
value amongst social referent groups. These normative influences often stem from people who
are known and influential, including family, friends, and colleagues. Subjective norms are import-
ant predictors of people’s behavioral intentions (Ajzen, 1991). For example, tourists’pro-environ-
mental behavior intentions can be explained by subjective norms (Wang et al., 2020). Thus, this
study hypothesized that:
H
2
: Subjective norms directly and positively influence TERBI.
Perceived behavioral control is “the perceived ease or difficulty of performing the behavior”
(Ajzen, 1991, p. 188). It reflects personal assessments of the resources or opportunities in the
form of experiences, challenges, and difficulties in adopting a specific behavior (Ajzen, 1991).
Perceived behavioral control plays a vital role in the decision-making process, as intentions to
perform certain behaviors depend somewhat on the sufficiency of resources or opportunities
one has (Meng & Choi, 2016). A positive link between perceived behavioral control and pro-
environmental behavioral intentions is supported in contexts of a green lodging and environ-
mentally responsible museums (Han, 2015; Han & Hyun, 2017). This study assumed that:
H
3
: Perceived behavioral control directly and positively influences TERBI.
Extended TPB model with destination psychological ownership
Although TPB has been successfully applied to various human behaviors in tourism, given that
the TPB framework is a rational decision-making model (Qiu et al., 2018), there is still room for
the improvement of the explanatory power in explaining specific behaviors and intentions such
as TERBI (Han & Hyun, 2017). The concept of psychological ownership could be a worthwhile
consideration.
Psychological ownership is the “state in which individuals feel as though the target of owner-
ship or a piece of it is ‘theirs’” (Pierce et al., 2001, p. 299). Pierce et al. (1991) developed the psy-
chological ownership-attitude-behavior model (hereafter, PAB) to stress that individuals with
psychological ownership in an organization show more positive attitudes and, thus, behaviors
toward the organization. The PAB model has been verified in predicting residents’place citizen-
ship behavior (Zhang & Xu, 2019). However, this model has rarely been applied to tourist envir-
onmentally responsible behavior. Psychological ownership affects human behaviors in various
contexts and helps contribute to organizational citizenship behavior (Van Dyne & Pierce, 2004).
Destination psychological ownership is a critical predisposing variable for tourist environmentally
responsible behavior (Li et al., 2020).
Destination psychological ownership describes ownership feelings toward a destination
(Kumar & Nayak, 2019). It is an essential factor in explaining TERBI. When tourists feel that they
are the “psychological owners”, the destination is regarded as an extended part of the self
(Pierce et al., 2003). Altruistic pro-environmental behaviors toward the destination might also be
perceived as self-directed, i.e. benefits of environmental actions or costs of inactions might be
redirected back to the self because the destination is also “mine,”even if in a psychological
sense. Accordingly, as invited hosts, tourists are likely to assume the responsibility of protecting
the destination’s natural environment (Li et al., 2020). Therefore, exploring the effect of destin-
ation psychological ownership on TERBI using the PAB model may be fruitful. However, few stud-
ies have endeavored to integrate the TPB and PAB models as a theoretical framework to
enhance model sufficiency. This research combined these two theories to understand TERBI bet-
ter. Therefore, it was proposed that:
4 H. QIU ET AL.
H
4
: Destination psychological ownership directly and positively influences TERBI.
The PAB model indicates that psychological ownership of an organization triggers more posi-
tive attitudes (Pierce et al., 1991). Wang and Chen (2005) found that an ownership mindset
toward an organization positively affected employee working attitudes. In marketing research,
psychological ownership is found to be a significant antecedent of attitudes toward products
(Pick, 2021). For tourists, feelings of psychological ownership toward a specific destination are
expected to translate into positive attitudes to engaging in environmentally responsible behav-
ior. Tourists may be inclined to have more favorable attitudes toward issues related to the des-
tination when they feel they are psychological hosts of that destination. Thus, it was
expected that:
H
5
: Destination psychological ownership directly and positively influences attitudes toward the behavior.
Perceived environmental responsibility within the PAB model
The importance of destination psychological ownership has been established, yet little investiga-
tion has explored the mediating variables between destination psychological ownership and
TERBI (Li et al., 2020). Special attention should be paid to uncovering these relationships to
understand better how destination psychological ownership influences TERBI.
Perceived environmental responsibility is a sense of responsibility to take measures to solve
environmental problems (Sheng et al., 2018). The role of perceived environmental responsibility
in inducing people’s behavior needs to be evaluated. This might hold the key for policymakers
to drive environmentally responsible behavior by increasing individuals’perception that they
should consider environmental responsibility in their actions (Kollmuss & Agyeman, 2002). This
felt responsibility could be critical for translating motivations into actual actions (Punzo et al.,
2019). Prior studies demonstrates that perceived environmental responsibility is a predictor of
green purchasing behavior (Lee, 2008) and ecological, environmental behavior (Lu et al., 2021).
Thus, the stronger people perceive environmental responsibility during traveling, the more likely
they are to engage in environmentally friendly behaviors and accordingly:
H
6
: Perceived environmental responsibility directly and positively influences TERBI.
The cognition-attitude-behavior model (CAB) follows the general rules of cognitive processing
to explain human behavioral decision-making (Deng et al., 2018). Individuals’cognition of spe-
cific issues activates the formation of related attitudes; these attitudes, in turn, could result in
specific behavioral intentions. According to the CAB model, perceived environmental responsibil-
ity as the belief that individuals should shoulder the obligation to protect nature could lead to
favorable attitudinal evaluations (e.g. protecting nature is wise and beneficial). Stronger per-
ceived environmental responsibility could facilitate more favorable environmental attitudes (Paco
& Rodrigues, 2016). Previous studies support this argument; for instance, perceived environmen-
tal responsibility positively impacted guest attitudes toward green lodging (Patwary et al., 2021).
Thus, it was proposed that:
H
7
: Perceived environmental responsibility directly and positively influences attitudes toward the behavior.
Psychological ownership lies in the feeling of ownership of an object (tangible or intangible)
(Pierce et al., 2001). One of the fundamental outcomes of ownership feelings is a sense of
responsibility (Van Dyne & Pierce, 2004). Psychological ownership can result in the sense of
responsibility toward an object (Pierce et al., 2003). People will want to take responsibility for
maintaining or nurturing the ownership object simply because it is theirs (Wang et al., 2022).
When a tourist forms a sense of psychological ownership for a specific destination, a sense of
responsibility toward this destination is evoked (Li et al., 2020). However, no study has explored
JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE TOURISM 5
the relationship between psychological ownership and perceived environmental responsibility in
a destination context. This paper posited that:
H
8
: Destination psychological ownership directly and positively influences perceived environmental
responsibility.
Place attachment within the PAB model
The bond between individuals and places is commonly recognized as place attachment
(Ramkissoon et al., 2013; Woosnam et al., 2018). Prior researchers have agreed on the critical role
place attachment plays in tourist loyalty (Xu & Zhang, 2016) and pro-environmental behavioral
process (Qiu et al., 2018). Based on a systematic literature review, Esfandiar et al. (2022) found
that place attachment was influential in explaining pro-environmental behaviors within protected
natural areas. When tourists are positively attached to a specific destination, they tend to be
more environmentally friendly during travel (Qiu et al., 2022b). The following hypothesis was
thus predicted:
H
9
: Place attachment directly and positively influences TERBI.
This current research also argues that place attachment can contribute to attitudes toward
behavior for the following reasons. The emotional ties derived from place attachment could elicit
greater empathy, provoking altruistic attitudes toward destination protection (Qiu et al., 2022b).
Tourists who identify strongly with the place could transfer what they love to the specific destin-
ation, expressing positive attitudes toward the destination, including favorable attitudes toward
protecting the natural environment (Qu et al., 2019). Previous empirical studies showed that
tourist attitudes toward protecting the environment are aroused by place attachment (e.g. Qiu,
2017). Given this evidence, the following hypothesis was proposed:
H
10
: Place attachment directly and positively influences attitudes toward the behavior.
Place attachment can be a function of destination psychological ownership. The “mere owner-
ship effect”indicates that people are generally more attached to objects they feel ownership of
than similar objects without (psychological) ownership (Beggan, 1992). People are likely to
exhibit high-level attachment for objects they have feelings of ownership (Peck & Shu, 2009).
Evidence for the association between psychological ownership and attachment is empirically
identified in marketing research (Kamleitner & Feuchtl, 2015). A recent study demonstrated that
if residents perceive a specific destination as psychologically theirs, they will exhibit a high-level
attachment to that place (Zhang & Xu, 2019). Thus, it is reasonable to predict that ownership
feelings toward the destination will result in stronger attachment.
H
11
: Destination psychological ownership directly and positively influences place attachment.
Generation theory presumes that cohort differences can be generalized to the mean cohort
level of each generation for a better understanding of the profile and characteristics of prototyp-
ical individuals (Twenge et al., 2010). Gen Z, unlike their parents and older siblings, exhibits dif-
ferent behaviors. They are tech-savvy, greener, and more oriented toward sustainability issues;
for example, they prefer those companies and brands that can connect with their psyches and
enhance their experiences and feelings (Dabija et al., 2019). However, there are some contradict-
ory findings. For instance, Parzonko et al. (2021) reported that Gen Z was less engaged in pro-
environmental behavior compared to older generations. Accordingly, Gen Z appears to behave
differently from previous generations, yet this difference might change in specific situations. This
research proposed that:
H
12
: Levels and predictors of TERBI between Gen Z and older generations are significantly different.
6 H. QIU ET AL.
This research further proposes within the PAB model that destination psychological ownership
exerts an impact on TERBI through the mediation of attitudes toward the (environmental) behav-
ior. The underlying logic is that when tourists feel ownership for the destination (i.e. this des-
tination is “mine”), they tend to hold positive attitudes toward issues related to the destination
(e.g. favorable attitudes toward protecting the destination environment) (Van Dyne & Pierce,
2004). These favorable attitudes will subsequently encourage the uptake of TERBI while travel-
ing in the destination. In addition, according to psychological ownership theory, ownership is
imbued with a sense of responsibility to nourish the ownership object (Pierce et al., 2001,
2003). When tourists feel they are invited by the destination hosts (i.e. destination psycho-
logical ownership), they will be more motivated to shoulder personal responsibility for protect-
ing the destination and hold more favorable attitudes to activate TERBI. Based on the “mere
ownership effect”(Beggan, 1992), tourists will be more attached to the destination if they feel
ownership of that destination. This attachment will translate into positive attitudes since the
destination is treated as an extended self (i.e. everything that happens to the destination
would be related to the self), and this self-relevance can subsequently make tourists more
committed to engaging in TERBI. Based on the above considerations, Figure 1 details the pro-
posed conceptual model.
Method
Measurement of constructs
A cross-sectional survey was used for data collection, including multi-item scales to measure
each construct. Validated scales from the prior literature were identified and modified to fit the
research setting (see Appendix A for details). Except for demographic variables, all other meas-
urement items were tested on five-point Likert-type scales, anchored from “strongly disagree”(1)
to “strongly agree”(5).
Measurement pretest
The translation and back-translation techniques between English and Chinese were applied to
improve the survey quality (Qiu et al., 2022a). A pilot test of the measurement items was per-
formed before the large-scale survey. Two types of validity measures in the pre-test phase,
Figure 1. Conceptual model.
Note: DPO ¼destination psychological ownership; PER ¼perceived environmental responsibility; PA ¼place attachment; ATT ¼attitudes toward
the behavior; SN ¼subjective norms; PBC ¼Perceived behavioral control; TERBI ¼tourist environmentally responsible behavioral intentions.
JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE TOURISM 7
covering content and construct validity, were evaluated. Concerning content validity, the scale
was reviewed by a panel of experts composed of three tourism scholars and three destination
managers. The panel judged the survey instrument’s relevancy, clarity, and suitability to check
and improve the content validity of instruments (Su et al., 2020).
To further ensure that the instrument items were designed without ambiguity and compre-
hended by the target respondents, a pre-test was performed with 120 tourists who had previous
travel experience to the destination of this research. They rated all items and provided feedback
to improve the scale. Regarding construct validity, results of an exploratory factor analysis
showed that each item’s standard factor loading was greater than 0.5 (p<0.001), denoting
acceptable levels of construct validity (Su et al., 2018a). Additionally, pilot testing demonstrated
that each item should be retained due to acceptable Cronbach’s alphas (all >0.7) (Su &
Swanson, 2019).
Data collection and sample characteristics
Hangzhou, known as “the Oriental leisure capital and the city of life quality,”was not only the
host city of the 2016 G20 Summit but also the 2022 Asian Games. Hangzhou is a popular urban
tourism destination due to its most famous attractions, including West Lake (a world heritage
cultural landscape site), Beijing-Hangzhou Grand Canal (a world cultural heritage site), and Xixi
National Wetland Park (Chinese national wetland park). Accordingly, Hangzhou was selected as
the destination for this research, and the above-mentioned three representative attractions were
chosen for data collection.
Two sets of data were collected in Hangzhou from October to November 2021 to obtain the
samples of Gen Z and older generations sequentially. Millions of tourists visit Hangzhou annually
(Qiu et al., 2022b), so it is almost impossible to perform a real random sampling procedure on
this large population (Meng & Choi, 2016). Instead, a convenience sampling procedure was
adopted, following its wide use for data collection in the tourism literature (e.g. Li et al., 2020;
Qiu et al., 2022a; Su & Swanson, 2017; Zheng et al., 2022b).
Specific to the Gen Z sample, four trained research assistants from a local university helped
facilitate the survey administration. The screening criterion was used whereby research assistants
approached potential participants to ask whether they were born between 1995 and 2009; if yes,
the research assistants informed people of the aim of this anonymous survey. Participants pro-
vided oral consent before taking part in the survey. In all, 600 Chinese domestic tourists (Gen Z)
participated, and all returned the questionnaire, among which 549 valid forms were then identi-
fied, resulting in a 91.5% valid rate.
Subsequently, a similar data collection procedure was used for the older generations, except
those potential participants were asked whether they were born before 1995 and presented with
the questionnaire after gaining oral informed consent. Considering that the statistical power of
the group-comparison hypothesis test is highest when groups have equal/balanced sample sizes
(Rusticus & Lovato, 2014), the research team again distributed and collected back the survey
from 600 Chinese domestic tourists (older generations), among which 547 valid forms were
obtained, a 91.2% valid rate.
Despite using the convenience sampling procedure, the participant characteristics of this
study (see Appendix B) matched the profiles of many other studies conducted in the same des-
tination (e.g. Qiu et al., 2022b; Zheng et al., 2022b; Zhou et al., 2020). This demographic align-
ment indicated that the sample has good representativeness of the tourist population of
Hangzhou. In sum, a sample with 1,096 valid responses were received, including Gen Z (n¼549)
and older generations (n¼547). These sample sizes are large enough to conduct confirmatory
factor analysis and structural equation modeling based on the criteria of Wolf et al. (2013) Monte
Carlo simulations.
8 H. QIU ET AL.
Before conducting the formal data analyses, the data set was evaluated for normality. The
results showed that the absolute skewness and kurtosis values for the scale items ranged from
1toþ1, meeting the skewness and kurtosis requirements (Hair et al., 2009). The Henze-Zirkler
multivariate normality test was applied to determine if the data were normally distributed. The
results showed that the data were multivariate normal (HZ ¼1.03, p¼0.49). The data were thus
appropriate for further analysis by AMOS.
Results
Common method variance test
Common method variance (CMV) was checked through Harman’s single-factor test and confirma-
tory factor analysis (CFA) (Zheng et al., 2022b). The results of Harman’s single-factor test via
exploratory factor analysis indicated a multi-factor structure. The factor with the largest eigen-
value accounted for 40.7% (out of 79.4%) of the total variance, below the threshold of 50%
(Podsakoff & Organ, 1986). The CFA test examined whether a common factor accounted for all
the variance in the data. The comparison results showed that the proposed measurement model
fit significantly better than the common-factor model (Dv
2
¼13623.93, Ddf ¼23, p<0.001).
These results suggested that CMV was not a significant concern.
Measurement model test
CFA was performed to evaluate construct validity and to estimate the model fit of the measure-
ment model before testing the proposed hypotheses through structural equation modeling
(Kline, 2010). The results showed that the measurement model had good model fit indices (v
2
/df
¼3.062, RMR ¼0.022, RMSEA ¼0.043, NFI ¼0.953, IFI ¼0.968, TLI ¼0.964, CFI ¼0.968) (Kline,
2010). Reliability and validity were further checked by evaluating Cronbach’s alphas, composite
reliability (CR), and convergent and discriminant validities (Tables 1 and 2). The results demon-
strated that the measurement model was reliable and valid, which allowed for further hypothesis
testing of the structural model.
Structural model test
Structured equation modeling (SEM) was used to test the hypothesized relationships. Table 3
and Figure 2 present the SEM results. The results indicated that the structural model was a good
fit to the data (v
2
/df ¼4.713, RMR ¼0.086, RMSEA ¼0.058, NFI ¼0.927, IFI ¼0.942, TLI ¼
0.935, CFI ¼0.942). The findings supported nine of the 11 hypothesized direct relationships
(Table 3). No significant direct relationship was found between destination psychological owner-
ship and TERBI (b¼0.048, p>0.05) or attitudes toward the behavior (b¼0.011, p>0.05), H
4
,
and H
5
were thus not supported.
Explanatory power of model
The explanation power of the model was tested by evaluating the R
2
values of its major
endogenous variables. The threshold for the R
2
values for the large, medium, and minor effects
in the model are 0.25, 0.09, and 0.01, respectively (Cohen, 1988). The squared multiple correla-
tions (SMC ¼R
2
) indicated that the model explained 15.7%, 44.8%, 32.0%, and 54.8% of the vari-
ance for perceived environmental responsibility, place attachment, attitudes, and TERBI,
respectively. Benchmarking with the suggested values, this model possessed good explanatory
power. The proposed model connecting destination psychological ownership to TERBI was thus
JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE TOURISM 9
robust, both theoretically and empirically. Findings showed that TPB (i.e. M
0
) explained 50% of
the variance for TERBI, PAB (i.e. M
1
) only had 38.9%, while the conceptual model (i.e. M
2
) had a
higher 54.8% explanation (see Appendix C). The results demonstrated that compared with any
single model, the integrated model did better in explanatory power. Results of model compari-
son tests in each sub-group were consistent with the hypothesized results from the total sample
(see Appendix C).
Table 1. Results of measurement model.
Construct and item label Std. factor loading tvalues CR AVE a
Attitudes toward the behavior (ATT) 0.933 0.776 0.931
ATT1 0.844 36.189
ATT2 0.912 41.723
ATT3 0.907 41.293
ATT4 0.858 —
Subjective norms (SN) 0.933 0.777 0.932
SN1 0.829 35.904
SN2 0.915 43.411
SN3 0.909 42.909
SN4 0.87 —
Perceived behavioral control (PBC) 0.897 0.684 0.896
PBC1 0.818 31.609
PBC2 0.835 32.547
PBC3 0.817 31.56
PBC4 0.838 —
Destination psychological ownership (DPO) 0.876 0.703 0.876
DPO1 0.808 29.791
DPO2 0.873 32.025
DPO3 0.833 —
Perceived environmental responsibility (PER) 0.92 0.699 0.919
PER1 0.817 28.012
PER2 0.885 30.643
PER3 0.856 29.544
PER4 0.864 29.85
PER5 0.751 —
Place attachment (PA) 0.818 0.692 0.931
Place dependence (PD) 0.829 21.049 0.930 0.769 0.929
PD1 0.843 35.682
PD2 0.909 40.788
PD3 0.901 40.202
PD4 0.853 —
Place identity (PI) 0.835 —0.922 0.748 0.921
PI1 0.854 34.346
PI2 0.884 36.264
PI3 0.892 36.769
PI4 0.828 —
Tourist environmentally responsible behavioral intentions (TERBI) 0.866 0.617 0.863
TERBI1 0.764 25.15
TERBI2 0.822 27.139
TERBI3 0.795 26.216
TERBI4 0.759 —
Note:CR¼composite reliability; AVE ¼average variance extracted; a¼Cronbach’s alpha.
Table 2. Results of discriminant validity.
Construct ATT SN PBC DPO PER PA TERBI
Attitudes toward the behavior (ATT) 0.881
Subjective norms (SN) 0.561 0.881
Perceived behavioral control (PBC) 0.329 0.412 0.827
Destination psychological ownership (DPO) 0.279 0.299 0.461 0.838
Perceived environmental responsibility (PER) 0.549 0.570 0.485 0.322 0.836
Place attachment (PA) 0.425 0.528 0.688 0.605 0.477 0.832
Tourist environmentally responsible behavioral intentions (TERBI) 0.513 0.563 0.582 0.486 0.548 0.713 0.785
Note: Diagonally positioned values in bold denotes the square roots of AVEs.
10 H. QIU ET AL.
Mediating effect tests
Perceived environmental responsibility, place attachment, and attitude towards the behavior
were hypothesized to mediate the relationship between destination psychological ownership
and TERBI partially. The bootstrapping method was used to test the significance of the proposed
mediating effects because it does not impose the assumption of normality of the sampling distri-
bution (Preacher & Hayes, 2008) and is also considered statistically robust in previous research
(MacKinnon et al., 2004).
The number of bootstrap samples was set to 5,000, using 95% bias-corrected and percentile
confidence intervals (hereafter, BCI and PCI). Table 4 presents the results of the bootstrapping
test. According to Zhao et al. (2010), the mediation effect is significant if the confidence interval
for the indirect effect does not contain zero. A significant specific indirect effect was identified
for destination psychological ownership on TERBI through perceived environmental responsibility
(BCI: [0.024, 0.079]; PCI: [0.024, 0.078]). Similarly, the results in Table 4 supported another three
specific indirect links: DPO!PER!ATT!TERBI, DPO!PA!TERBI, and DPO!PA!ATT!TERBI.
However, the DPO!ATT!TERBI path was not supported (BCI: [0.009, 0.014]; PCI:
[0.009, 0.014]).
The effect ratio, which refers to the proportion of the total mediation effect (Kelley &
Preacher, 2012), was calculated to estimate the relative magnitude of the mediation. The results
demonstrated that the indirect effects of destination psychological ownership on TERBI through
place attachment were stronger than those through perceived environmental responsibility and
attitudes. Place attachment was found to be the most potent mediator in the link. It mediated
71.5% (DPO!PA!TERBI) of ownership’s total mediating effect on TERBI.
Table 3. Results of structural model.
Hypotheses paths Standardized coefficient SE t-value p-value Results
H
1
ATT!TERBI 0.142 0.029 4.366 Supported
H
2
SN!TERBI 0.174 0.024 5.914 Supported
H
3
PBC!TERBI 0.181 0.026 5.355 Supported
H
4
DPO!TERBI 0.048 0.041 0.983 0.326 Not supported
H
5
DPO!ATT 0.011 0.045 0.241 0.81 Not supported
H
6
PER!TERBI 0.148 0.034 4.447 Supported
H
7
PER!ATT 0.467 0.04 13.719 Supported
H
8
DPO!PER 0.396 0.028 11.626 Supported
H
9
PA!TERBI 0.392 0.043 8.233 Supported
H
10
PA!ATT 0.208 0.047 4.487 Supported
H
11
DPO!PA 0.669 0.037 17.191 Supported
Note:p<0.05, p<0.01, p<0.001.
Figure 2. Results of the hypothetical model.
JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE TOURISM 11
Comparative analysis between Gen Z and older generation
A total of 1,096 valid respondents were divided into two groups: the Gen Z sub-sample (n¼549)
and the older generations sub-sample (n¼547). A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) using
the Scheffe’s test was adopted to explore whether any differences existed between the age
groups for TERBI (Lee et al., 2018). The average score of TERBI was 3.725 for Gen Z, whereas the
corresponding value was 3.815 for older generations. The ANOVA test suggested significant dif-
ferences between Gen Z and older generations in explaining TERBI (F ¼4.544, p¼0.033), sup-
porting H
12.
In each sub-group, the measurement model’s reliability and validity tests were passed (see
Appendixes D and E). The results of structural model assessment (Figures 3 and 4) and specific
mediation analysis in each sub-group were in line with the hypothesized results from the total
sample (see Appendixes F & G).
According to the suggestion by Su and Swanson (2017), the multi-group comparative analysis
method in AMOS was introduced for a comparative analysis between Gen Z and older genera-
tions. Both groups’data were imported and six different conditions set up. Appendix H demon-
strates an acceptable fit in all the tested models. Significant differences were found in testing
differences between the constrained and the unconstrained models (see Appendix I), indicating
that age acted as a moderator in the conceptual model.
To make sure if any hypothesized paths were different between Gen Z and older generations,
the critical radical ratio of difference (CRD) of the same paths between the two sub-samples was
examined. The CRD of each group is provided in Table 5. The findings showed that the direct
effect of subjective norms on TERBI was significantly different (CRD ¼2.991, p<0.05)
(Steenkamp & Baumgartner, 1995). However, significant differences in any other direct hypothe-
sized paths between Gen Z and older generations were not supported, as the CRD value was
below the cut-off of 1.96 with a p-value exceeding 0.05 (Table 5).
Discussion, conclusions, and implications
Conclusions
Understanding the antecedents of TERBI is vital to a destination’s sustainability (Su et al.,
2018b). Through the lens of two theoretical frameworks (TPB and PAB), an integrated model of
destination psychological ownership, perceived environmental responsibility, and place attach-
ment was developed to explain the effect of destination psychological ownership on TERBI.
Data were collected in Hangzhou from two sub-samples, Gen Z and older generations. The
results (being consistent for the two samples) found that most of the proposed hypotheses
were supported.
This research confirmed that all three TPB variables (perceived behavioral control, subjective
norms, and attitudes toward the behavior) positively predicted TERBI. The more positive were
attitudes toward environmentally responsible behavior and the more significant were the
Table 4. Specific mediation test results via bootstrapping method.
Specific indirect path Point estimate
Product of coefficients
Bootstrap
Support?
PCI BCI
SE Z Lower Upper Lower Upper
DPO!PER!TERBI 0.05 0.014 3.571 0.024 0.078 0.024 0.079 Yes
DPO!PER!ATT!TERBI 0.022 0.006 3.667 0.011 0.035 0.011 0.036 Yes
DPO!ATT!TERBI 0.001 0.006 0.167 0.009 0.014 0.009 0.014 No
DPO!PA!TERBI 0.223 0.035 6.371 0.158 0.295 0.159 0.296 Yes
DPO!PA!ATT!TERBI 0.017 0.006 2.833 0.007 0.029 0.008 0.031 Yes
Note: BCI ¼Bias-corrected 95% confidence intervals, PCI ¼Percentile 95% confidence interval.
12 H. QIU ET AL.
perceived behavioral control and subjective norms, the stronger were the intentions to behave
in an environmentally responsible way. Various tourism studies have applied the TPB framework
and explored the direct links between TPB factors and individuals’behavioral intentions (Han,
2015; Wang et al., 2020). These scholars found that all of the TPB factors explained behavioral
intentions. Thus, TPB is a feasible theoretical framework for explaining TERBI (Loureiro et al.,
2022; Zheng et al., 2022a).
Figure 4. Results of hypothetical model (older generations).
Table 5. Path coefficient comparisons between Gen Z and older generations.
Hypothesized path between two sub-samples Critical radical ratio of difference (CRD)
ATT!TERBI 0.08
SN!TERBI 2.991
PBC!TERBI 0.059
DPO!TERBI 0.167
DPO!ATT 0.641
PER!TERBI 0.582
PER!ATT 0.603
DPO!PER 0.481
PA!TERBI 0.612
PA!ATT 1.193
DPO!PA 0.109
Note:p<0.05.
Figure 3. Results of hypothetical model (Gen Z).
JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE TOURISM 13
Destination psychological ownership did not directly impact pro-environmental behavioral
intentions. This result seems to contradict the assumption that when tourists feel like the psy-
chological hosts of the destination, they will have stronger intentions to engage in TERBI as the
destination would an extended part of the self (Wang et al., 2022). However, further analyses
suggested that the impact of destination psychological ownership on TERBI was mediated by
perceived environmental responsibility and place attachment.
The findings confirmed that perceived environmental responsibility was significantly and posi-
tively associated with attitudes and TERBI. The results were consistent with existing studies in dif-
ferent settings (Lu et al., 2021; Patwary et al., 2021). More importantly, DPO!PER!TERBI and
DPO!PER!ATT!TERBI sequences were supported (Table 4). This effect occurs because feelings
of ownership increase perceived responsibility, which then leads to proactive intentions of envir-
onmental actions (Peck et al., 2021). Place attachment’s direct and positive influence on attitudes
and TERBI was identified, supporting the standpoint in past tourism studies (Qiu, 2017).
DPO!PA!TERBI and DPO!PA!ATT!TERBI sequences were identified (Table 4). The results
confirmed the logic from Zhang and Xu (2019) work and provide a better understanding of the
mediating effect by showcasing the sequential mediating roles of place attachment
and attitudes.
The magnitude and drivers of TERBI between Gen Z and older generations were evaluated.
Given that each generation seems to have its profile and characteristics of prototypical behaviors
as per generation theory (Twenge et al., 2010), it is useful to know how age groups (Gen Z and
older generations) can serve as a boundary condition in TERBI formation. As found in the prior
literature (Parzonko et al., 2021), the results suggested that compared to Gen Z, older genera-
tions are more engaged in pro-environmental behavior. This is likely explained by the reasoning
that as people grow older, they become more concerned about the environment (Franzen &
Meyer, 2010) and are more likely to exhibit environmentally responsible ways during travel
(Dolnicar, 2004). Therefore, the study showcased how generation groups vary in TERBI and pro-
environmental decision-making processes.
Theoretical implications
Viewing tourists as the invited hosts of the destination, this research makes a pioneering effort
to shed light on how destination psychological ownership contributes to TERBI, thus providing
unique theoretical implications for the sustainable management of tourism destinations.
First, the application of TPB was extended by taking the PAB framework into account. The
TPB is the most commonly used theoretical framework for explaining TERBI (Esfandiar et al.,
2022). However, destination psychological ownership provides new insight into explaining behav-
iors from the viewpoint of the tourist-destination deep psychological bond, i.e. tourists as the
invited hosts (Kumar & Nayak, 2019). The PAB model has been successfully applied in explaining
residents’citizenship behavior for two destinations (Zhang & Xu, 2019). This research, however,
supplements TPB concerning how PAB could help understand the influence of destination psy-
chological ownership on TERBI. Applying the theoretical frameworks of TPB and PAB (Ajzen,
1991; Pierce et al., 1991), this research bridged the gap by developing an integrated model to
explore the process leading from destination psychological ownership to TERBI. The results dem-
onstrated that the integrated model had better explanatory power than either TPB or PAB. To
the researchers’best knowledge, this is one of the first attempts to apply these frameworks in
tandem as we move toward understanding more about which main predictors contribute
to TERBI.
Second, the findings add to the current literature by examining perceived environmental
responsibility and place attachment as mediators of the impact of destination psychological own-
ership on TERBI. There is a need to evoke destination psychological ownership to promote the
14 H. QIU ET AL.
proactive uptake of TERBI. However, addressing the “black-box”of the mediation remains some-
what vague, as little empirical evidence exists for the intervening variables in the relationship
between destination psychological ownership and TERBI (Li et al., 2020). The results indicated
that TERBI was indirectly influenced by destination psychological ownership through the medi-
ation of perceived environmental responsibility and place attachment. Identifying differences
among the multiple mediation paths is important to uncovering the critical mediator (Qiu et al.,
2022b). Compared to the other mediator (i.e. perceived environmental responsibility), place
attachment played a more vital mediating role in the link between destination psychological
ownership and TERBI. This finding was in line with the prior literature that supports a critical
mediating role of place attachment in explaining the process of tourist environmentally respon-
sible behavior (Qiu et al., 2022b). In sum, destination psychological ownership helps to promote
TERBI, depending on the dual-mediators of perceived environmental responsibility and place
attachment. This study complemented the recent work from Li et al. (2020) and Zhang and Xu
(2019) in elaborating on how destination psychological ownership motivates tourists to be more
engaged in pro-environmental activities.
Third, this study takes an initial step to perform a comparative analysis of Gen Z and older
generations in TERBI decision-making. No study has so far explored the differences between Gen
Z and other generation groups regarding levels and predictors of TERBI. The results showed that
the effect of subjective norms on TERBI was lower in the older generations than in Gen Z tou-
rists. Compared to the older generations, Gen Z tourists were more likely to obey the expecta-
tions of significant others and take others’opinions as guidance for their behavior. This finding
was consistent with the standpoint developed from Kohlberg and Kramer (1969) theory of moral
development. Gen Z tourists follow the principle of good children and take the encouragement
and praise from parents and relatives as a behavioral principle. The older generations, however,
are relatively more independent in normative influences and inclined to make decisions
independently.
Practical implications
This study offers practical implications to destination managers in promoting sustainable tourism
development, especially related to SDG 15. First, destination managers need to regard tourists as
the psychological owners of the destination. The notion of tourists and tourism organizations
acting as “custodians”with co-stewardship of the places they value is crucial to sustainable tour-
ism development. Destination managers should promote tourist understanding that they are the
invited hosts of the destination, thus being a key stakeholder in protecting that destination. To
strengthen ownership feelings for a destination, destination managers should provide tourists
with more opportunities to engage in tourism-related decision-making. Multiple communication
strategies (offline and online) should be used to enhance tourists’destination psycho-
logical ownership.
Second, perceived environmental responsibility must be highlighted due to its meaningful
contribution to promoting TERBI. Pro-environmental attitudes and TERBI are driven by perceived
environmental responsibility. To motivate environmentally friendly norms, destination managers
should emphasize tourist responsibility for participating in environmentally responsible practices
via imperceptible propaganda education about ecological civilization. Green supportive environ-
ment construction is inseparable from implementing sustainable tourism to achieve SDG 15. For
example, destination managers should consider designing and organizing more frequent events
with a focus on destination sustainability, which will encourage greater responsibility for pro-
environmental behavior.
In addition, the nurturing of place attachment should be accentuated. Place attachment is the
most critical mediator between destination psychological ownership and TERBI. For developing
JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE TOURISM 15
sustainable tourism, various strategies to activate the formation of place attachment should be
adopted. For instance, popular social media platforms such as TikTok, Weibo microblogging, and
WeChat are ideal platforms for shaping attractive and unique destination images to elicit place
attachment. Additionally, on-site facilities and services should be improved, and unique experien-
ces staged to create memorable tourist experiences and potential destination attachment.
Lastly, market segmentation based on different generations should be applied. To promote
sustainable tourism concerning SDG 15, it is crucial to understand tourist profiles to benefit the
destination environment (Lee et al., 2018). The findings demonstrated that, compared to older
generations, Gen Z is less inclined to engage in environmentally responsible behaviors when
traveling. However, for Gen Z, the effect of subjective norms on TERBI is significantly higher.
Therefore, destination managers should have varying strategies to target different generations to
encourage proactive TERBI. Notably, the role of subjective norms should be taken more into
account to promote TERBI among Gen Z for sustainable destination development.
Limitations and future research directions
This research has some limitations that can help inform directions for future research. First, this
study captured self-reported intentions of pro-environmental behaviors. The reported behavioral
intentions may be biased due to the social desirability effect. Future studies should assess indi-
viduals’actual behaviors in multiple ways (e.g. reports of others’behaviors or behavioral observa-
tions). Second, the results were based on cross-sectional data. However, following this design,
the causality within the integrated model may not be revealed effectively. Future research is
thus needed to incorporate longitudinal data to validate the causal nature of the mentioned
relationships.
Third, the participant profile of this study included minors, i.e. tourists aged under 18 (5.8%)
in the Gen Z sample. Considering that the propaganda education about ecological civilization
has been well-executed at school, as younger teenagers, Gen Z should be able to understand
and provide reasonable responses to the survey questions about travel and environmental pro-
tection that are not far away from their daily lives. However, it is admitted that a comprehension
discrepancy likely existed among this small portion of participants. Thus, reliable ways to gain
informed consent should be practiced in future research, along with more scientific techniques
that facilitate surveys with minors.
Lastly, this research examines the positive outcomes (i.e. facilitating TERBI) of destination psy-
chological ownership. However, destination psychological ownership might backfire, causing
unexpected negative consequences (Pierce et al., 2001,2003; Wang et al., 2022) for the destin-
ation. For example, tourists might feel psychologically entitled to do whatever they want to the
destination, potentially resulting in interpersonal or intergroup conflicts with local residents. In
this regard, future research needs to examine whether destination psychological ownership has
unintended adverse consequences.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Funding
This research is supported by the Youth Foundation of Humanities and Social Science Project of the Ministry of
Education in China (Grant Number: 19YJC630131), and Youth Key Project of Premier Humanities and Social Science
Program for Higher Educational Institutes of Zhejiang Province (Grant Number:2018QN015).
16 H. QIU ET AL.
Notes on contributors
Hongliang Qiu, PhD, is an Associate Professor and Vice Dean of the School of Business Administration, Tourism
College of Zhejiang, China. He was selected as “Zhejiang Young Tourism Expert”, a tourism top talent cultivation
project in 2019. His article not only won top 4 cited articles of Tourism Tribune (2014-2022), but ranked first for
excellent papers of 2014 China Tourism Academy Summit Dissertation Award. According to CNKI statistical results,
he is also the scholar with the most single citations and total citations in the field of tourist environmentally
responsible behavior and tourist civility.
Xiongzhi Wang is a PhD candidate at School of Communication and Arts, the University of Queensland, Australia.
He is interested in environmental psychology, sustainable tourism, and environmental communication research.
Alastair M. Morrison, PhD, is a Research Professor in the Department of Marketing, Events and Tourism, Business
School at the University of Greenwich in London, UK. He has published approximately 300 academic articles and
conference proceedings, as well as over 50 research monographs related to marketing and tourism. His research
interests include tourism destination management, marketing and branding, sustainable tourism, tourism cities,
sharing economy and crisis management.
Catherine Kelly, PhD, is a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Marketing, Events and Tourism, Business School at
the University of Greenwich in London, UK. She has more than 17 years’experience as an academic and consultant
in the cultural, heritage and tourism sector. She has worked in the UK, Ireland and United States and held various
roles in academia from management, course development, to research, consultancy and lecturing.
Wei Wei, PhD, is an Associate Professor at the Rosen College of Hospitality Management, University of Central
Florida, U.S.A. She received her Ph.D. degree and Master’s degree in Hospitality and Tourism Management from
Purdue University, U.S.A. Her research interests include consumer behavior, psychology, and experience in hospital-
ity and tourism.
ORCID
Hongliang Qiu http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7567-5040
Alastair M. Morrison http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0754-1083
References
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,50(2),
179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
Beggan, J. K. (1992). On the social nature of nonsocial perception: The mere ownership effect. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology,62(2), 229–237. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.62.2.229
Bimonte, S., & Punzo, L. F. (2016). Tourist development and host-guest interaction. Annals of Tourism Research,58,
128–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2016.03.004
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Dabija, D. C., Bejan, B. M., & Dinu, V. (2019). How sustainability oriented is Generation Z in retail? A literature
review. Transformations in Business & Economics,18, 140–155.
Dabija, D.-C., Bejan, B. M., & Pus
,cas
,,C.(2020). A qualitative approach to the sustainable orientation of Generation Z
in retail: The case of Romania. Journal of Risk and Financial Management,13(7), 152. https://doi.org/10.3390/
jrfm13070152
Deng, W., Yi, M., & Li, S. (2018). Research on “cognitive-attitude-use”model-based online users review information
usage behavior. Information and Documentation Services,29(4), 71–79.
Dolnicar, S. (2004). Insights into sustainable tourists in Austria: A data-based a priori segmentation approach.
Journal of Sustainable Tourism,12(3), 209–218. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669580408667234
Dolnicar, S., Cvelbar, L. K., & Gr€
un, B. (2019). A sharing-based approach to enticing tourists to behave more environ-
mentally friendly. Journal of Travel Research,58(2), 241–252.
Erul, E., & Woosnam, K. M. (2022). Explaining residents’behavioral support for tourism through two theoretical
frameworks. Journal of Travel Research,61(2), 362–377. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287520987619
Erul, E., Woosnam, K. M., & McIntosh, W. A. (2020). Considering emotional solidarity and the theory of planned
behavior in explaining behavioral intentions to support tourism development. Journal of Sustainable Tourism,
28(8), 1158–1173. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2020.1726935
Esfandiar, K., Pearce, J., Dowling, R., & Goh, E. (2022). Pro-environmental behaviours in protected areas. Tourism
Management Perspectives,41, 100943. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2022.100943
JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE TOURISM 17
Fan, J., Qiu, H., & Wu, X. (2014). Tourist destination image, place attachment and tourists’environmentally respon-
sible behavior. Tourism Tribune,29(1), 55–66.
Franzen, A., & Meyer, R. (2010). Environmental attitudes in cross-national perspective: A multilevel analysis of the
ISSP 1993 and 2000. European Sociological Review,26(2), 219–234. https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcp018
Goh, E., & Lee, C. (2018). A workforce to be reckoned with: The emerging pivotal Generation Z hospitality work-
force. International Journal of Hospitality Management,73,20–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2018.01.016
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2009). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Prentice Hall.
Hall, C. M. (2019). Constructing sustainable tourism development. Journal of Sustainable Tourism,27(7), 1044–1060.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2018.1560456
Han, H. (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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tour-
man.2014.09.014
Han, H., & Hyun, S. S. (2017). Drivers of customer decision to visit an environmentally responsible museum:
Merging the theory of planned behavior and norm activation theory. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing,
34(9), 1155–1168. https://doi.org/10.1080/10548408.2017.1304317
Kamleitner, B., & Feuchtl, S. (2015). As if it were mine”: Imagery works by inducing psychological ownership. Journal
of Marketing Theory and Practice,23(2), 208–223.
Kelley, K., & Preacher, K. J. (2012). On effect size. Psychological Methods,17(2), 137–152. https://doi.org/10.1037/
a0028086
Kiatkawsin, K., & Han, H. (2017). Young travelers’intention to behavior pro-environmentally: Merging the value-
belief-norm theory and the expectancy theory. Tourism Management,59,76–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tour-
man.2016.06.018
Kline, R. B. (2010). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed). Guilford.
Kohlberg, L., & Kramer, R. (1969). Continuities and discontinuities in childhood and adult moral development.
Human Development,12(2), 93–120.
Kollmuss, A., & Agyeman, J. (2002). Mind the gap: Why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to
pro-environmental behavior? Environmental Education Research,8(3), 239–260. https://doi.org/10.1080/
13504620220145401
Kumar, J., & Nayak, J. K. (2019). Exploring destination psychological ownership among tourists. Journal of Hospitality
and Tourism Management,39,30–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2019.01.006
Lee, K. (2008). Opportunities for green marketing: Young consumers. Marketing Intelligence & Planning,26(6),
573–586.
Lee, T. H., Jan, F., Tseng, C. H., & Lin, Y. (2018). Segmentation by recreation experience in island-based tourism: A
case study of Taiwan’s Liuqiu Island. Journal of Sustainable Tourism,26(3), 362–378. https://doi.org/10.1080/
09669582.2017.1354865
Li, S., Wei, M., Qu, H., & Qiu, S. C. (2020). How does self-image congruity affect tourists’environmentally responsible
behavior? Journal of Sustainable Tourism,28(12), 2156–2174. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2020.1800717
Liu, J., Wu, J. S., & Che, T. (2019). Understanding perceived environment quality in affecting tourists’environmen-
tally responsible behaviours: A broken windows theory perspective. Tourism Management Perspectives,31,
236–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2019.05.007
Loureiro, S. M. C., Guerreiro, J., & Han, H. (2022). Past, present, and future of pro-environmental behavior in tourism
and hospitality: A text-mining approach. Journal of Sustainable Tourism,30(1), 258–278. https://doi.org/10.1080/
09669582.2021.1875477
Lu, H., Liu, X., Zhang, W., Chen, H., & Long, R. (2021). Influence mechanism of Chinese citizens’ecological environ-
ment behavior in the post-epidemic period from the perspective of risk perception. China Population, Resources
and Environment,31(10), 139–148.
MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., & Williams, J. (2004). Confidence limits for the indirect effect: Distribution of the
product and resampling methods. Multivariate Behavioral Research,39(1), 99–128.
Meng, B., & Choi, K. (2016). The role of authenticity in forming slow tourists’intentions: Developing an extended
model of goal-directed behavior. Tourism Management,57, 397–410. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2016.07.
003
Onwezen, M. C., Antonides, G., & Bartels, J. (2013). The norm activation model: An exploration of the functions of
anticipated pride and guilt in pro-environmental behavior. Journal of Economic Psychology,39, 141–153. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2013.07.005
Paco, A., & Rodrigues, R. G. (2016). Environmental activism and consumers’perceived responsibility. International
Journal of Consumer Studies,40, 466–474.
Parzonko, A. J., Bali
nska, A., & Sieczko, A. (2021). Pro-environmental behaviors of Generation Z in the context of the
concept of homo socio-oeconomicus. Energies,14(6), 1597. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14061597
Patwary, A. K., Omar, H., & Tahir, S. (2021). The impact of perceived environmental responsibility on tourists’inten-
tion to visit green hotel: The mediating role of attitude. GeoJournal of Tourism and Geosites,34(1), 9–13. https://
doi.org/10.30892/gtg.34101-612
18 H. QIU ET AL.
Peck, J., Kirk, C. P., Luangrath, A. W., & Shu, S. B. (2021). Caring for the commons: Using psychological ownership to
enhance stewardship behavior for public goods. Journal of Marketing,85(2), 33–49. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0022242920952084
Peck, J., & Shu, S. B. (2009). The effect of mere touch on perceived ownership. Journal of Consumer Research,36(3),
434–447. https://doi.org/10.1086/598614
Pick, M. (2021). Psychological ownership in social media influencer marketing. European Business Review,33(1),
9–30. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-08-2019-0165
Pierce, J. L., Kostova, T., & Dirks, K. T. (2001). Toward a theory of psychological ownership in organizations. The
Academy of Management Review,26(2), 298–310. https://doi.org/10.2307/259124
Pierce, J. L., Kostova, T., & Dirks, K. T. (2003). The state of psychological ownership: Integrating and extending a cen-
tury of research. Review of General Psychology,7(1), 84–107. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.7.1.84
Pierce, J. L., Rubenfeld, S. A., & Morgan, S. (1991). Employee ownership: A conceptual model of process and effects.
The Academy of Management Review,16(1), 121–144. https://doi.org/10.2307/258609
Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects. Journal of
Management,12(4), 531–544. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920638601200408
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect
effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods,40(3), 879–891.
Punzo, G., Panarello, D., Pagliuca, M. M., Castellano, R., & Aprile, M. C. (2019). Assessing the role of perceived values
and felt responsibility on pro-environmental behaviours. Environmental Science & Policy,101, 311–322. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2019.09.006
Qin, X., & Luo, Q. (2022). External pressures or internal motives? Investigating the determinants of exhibitors’will-
ingness to adopt eco-exhibiting. Journal of Sustainable Tourism,30(4), 704–722. https://doi.org/10.1080/
09669582.2021.1881104
Qiu, H. (2017). Tourism festival image, festival attachment, festival tourists’environmentally responsible attitude
and behavior. Zhejiang Social Sciences,2,84–93.
Qiu, H., Fan, J., & Zhao, L. (2018). Development of the academic study of tourists’environmentally responsible
behavior. Tourism Tribune,33(11), 122–138.
Qiu, H., Wang, X., Wei, W., Morrison, A. M., & Wu, M. Y. (2022a). Breaking Bad: How anticipated emotions and per-
ceived severity shape tourist civility? Journal of Sustainable Tourism,1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2022.
2108039
Qiu, H., Wang, X., Wu, M. Y., Wei, W., Morrison, A. M., & Kelly, C. (2022b). The effect of destination source credibility
on tourist environmentally responsible behavior. Journal of Sustainable Tourism,1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/
09669582.2022.2067167
Qu, Y., Xu, F., & Lyu, X. (2019). Motivational place attachment dimensions and the pro-environmental behaviour
intention of mass tourists. Current Issues in Tourism,22(2), 197–217. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2017.
1399988
Ramkissoon, H., Smith, L. D., & Weiler, B. (2013). Testing the dimensionality of place attachment and its relation-
ships with place satisfaction and pro-environmental behaviours. Tourism Management,36, 552–566. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.tourman.2012.09.003
Rusticus, S. A., & Lovato, C. Y. (2014). Impact of sample size and variability on the power and type I error rates of
equivalence tests. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation,19(1), 11.
Scott, D., Hall, C. M., & G€
ossling, S. (2016). A review of the IPCC fifth assessment and implications for tourism sector
climate resilience and decarbonization. Journal of Sustainable Tourism,24(1), 8–30.
Scott, D., Hall, C. M., & G€
ossling, S. (2019). Global tourism vulnerability to climate change. Annals of Tourism
Research,77,49–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2019.05.007
Seyfi, S., Hall, C. M., Saarinen, J., & Vo-Thanh, T. (2022). Do international sanctions help or inhibit justice and sustain-
ability in tourism? Journal of Sustainable Tourism,1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2022.2069785
Sheng, G., Ge, W., & Tang, L. (2018). Effects of environmental responsibility on the purchase behavior of green
products. Statistics & Information Forum,33(5), 114–120.
Steenkamp, J. B. E., & Baumgartner, H. (1995). Development and cross-cultural validation of a short form of CSI as a
measure of optimum stimulation level. International Journal of Research in Marketing,12(2), 97–104. https://doi.
org/10.1016/0167-8116(93)E0035-8
Su, L., Hsu, M. K., & Boostrom, R. E. Jr. (2020). From recreation to responsibility: Increasing environmentally respon-
sible behavior in tourism. Journal of Business Research,109, 557–573. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.12.055
Su, L., Huang, S. S., & Pearce, J. (2018a). How does destination social responsibility contribute to environmentally
responsible behaviour? A destination resident perspective. Journal of Business Research,86, 179–189. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.02.011
Su, L., & Swanson, S. R. (2017). The effect of destination social responsibility on tourist environmentally responsible
behavior. Tourism Management,60, 308–321. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2016.12.011
JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE TOURISM 19
Su, L., & Swanson, S. R. (2019). Perceived corporate social responsibility’s impact on the well-being and supportive
green behaviors of hotel employees. Tourism Management,72, 437–450. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2019.
01.009
Su, L., Swanson, S. R., & Chen, X. (2018b). Reputation, subjective well-being, and environmental responsibility: The
role of satisfaction and identification. Journal of Sustainable Tourism,26(8), 1344–1361. https://doi.org/10.1080/
09669582.2018.1443115
Tonge, J., Ryan, M. M., Moore, S. A., & Beckley, L. E. (2015). The effect of place attachment on pro-environment
behavioral intentions of visitors to coastal natural area tourist destinations. Journal of Travel Research,54(6),
730–743. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287514533010
Twenge, J., Campbell, S., Hoffman, B., & Lance, C. (2010). Generational differences in work values. Journal of
Management,36(5), 1117–1142. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206309352246
Van Dyne, L., & Pierce, J. L. (2004). Psychological ownership and feelings of possession: Three field studies predict-
ing employee attitudes and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior,25(4),
439–459. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.249
Wang, P., & Chen, S. (2005). Psychological ownership in organizations and its relationship to employee’s working
attitudes and behavior. Advances in Psychological Science,13(6), 774–779.
Wang, X., Fielding, K. S., & Dean, A. J. (2022). Psychological ownership of nature: A conceptual elaboration and
research agenda. Biological Conservation,267, 109477. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2022.109477
Wang, X., Qin, X., & Zhou, Y. (2020). A comparative study of relative roles and sequences of cognitive and affective
attitudes on tourists’pro-environmental behavioral intention. Journal of Sustainable Tourism,28(5), 727–746.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2019.1704297
Wang, X., & Zhang, C. (2020). Contingent effects of social norms on tourists’pro-environmental behaviours. Journal
of Sustainable Tourism,28(10), 1646–1664. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2020.1746795
Wolf, E. J., Harrington, K. M., Clark, S. L., & Miller, M. W. (2013). Sample size requirements for structural equation
models. Educational and Psychological Measurement,73(6), 913–934. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164413495237
Wong, I. A., Wan, Y. K. P., Huang, G. I., & Qi, S. (2021). Green event directed pro-environmental behavior: An applica-
tion of goal systems theory. Journal of Sustainable Tourism,29(11–12), 1948–1969. https://doi.org/10.1080/
09669582.2020.1770770
Woosnam, K. M., Aleshinloye, K. D., Ribeiro, M. A., Stylidis, D., Jiang, J., & Erul, E. (2018). Social determinants of place
attachment at a World Heritage Site. Tourism Management,67, 139–146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2018.
01.012
Woosnam, K. M., Ribeiro, M. A., Denley, T. J., Hehir, C., & Boley, B. B. (2022). Psychological antecedents of intentions
to participate in last chance tourism: Considering complementary theories. Journal of Travel Research,61(6),
1342–1357. https://doi.org/10.1177/00472875211025097
Wu, J. S., Font, X., & Liu, J. (2021a). The elusive impact of pro-environmental intention on holiday on pro-environ-
mental behaviour at home. Tourism Management,85, 104283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2021.104283
Wu, J. S., Font, X., & Liu, J. (2021b). Tourists’pro-environmental behaviors: Moral obligation or disengagement?
Journal of Travel Research,60(4), 735–748. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287520910787
Xu, Z., & Zhang, J. (2016). Antecedents and consequences of place attachment. Journal of Destination Marketing &
Management,5(2), 86–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdmm.2015.11.003
Zhang, H., & Xu, H. (2019). Impact of destination psychological ownership on residents’“place citizenship behavior”.
Journal of Destination Marketing & Management,14, 100391. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdmm.2019.100391
Zhao, X., Lynch, J. G., & Chen, Q. (2010). Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and truths about mediation ana-
lysis. Journal of Consumer Research,37(2), 197–206. https://doi.org/10.1086/651257
Zheng, W., Qiu, H., Morrison, A. M., Wei, W., & Zhang, X. (2022a). Landscape and unique fascination: A dual-case
study on the antecedents of tourist pro-environmental behavioral intentions. Land,11(4), 479. https://doi.org/10.
3390/land11040479
Zheng, W., Qiu, H., Morrison, A. M., Wei, W., & Zhang, X. (2022b). Rural and urban land tourism and destination
image: A dual-case study approach examining energy-saving behavior and loyalty. Land,11(2), 146. https://doi.
org/10.3390/land11020146
Zhou, B., Liu, T., Ryan, C., Wang, L. E., & Zhang, D. (2020). The satisfaction of tourists using bicycle sharing: A struc-
tural equation model –The case of Hangzhou, China. Journal of Sustainable Tourism,28(7), 1063–1082. https://
doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2020.1720697
20 H. QIU ET AL.
Appendix A. Measurement scales and literature sources.
Construct Item Label Source
Attitudes toward
the behavior
I think protecting the environment of X is a wise behavior. ATT1 Meng and
Choi (2016)
I think protecting the environment of X is a valuable behavior. ATT2
I think protecting the environment of X is a
necessary behavior.
ATT3
I think protecting the environment of X is a beneficial behavior. ATT4
Subjective norms Most people who are important to me think I should protect
the environment of X.
SN1 Meng and
Choi (2016)
Most people who are important to me support me to protect
the environment of X.
SN2
Most people who are important to me recommend me to
protect the environment of X.
SN3
Most people who are important to me agree me to protect the
environment of X.
SN4
Perceived
behavioral control
Whether or not protecting the environment of X is up to me. PBC1 Meng and
Choi (2016)
I am capable of protecting the environment of X. PBC2
I am confident that if I want, I can protect the environment
of X.
PBC3
I have enough resource, time and opportunities to protect the
environment of X.
PBC4
Destination
psychological
ownership
I sense that X is my destination. DPO1 Zhang and
Xu (2019)
I feel a very high degree of personal ownership for X. DPO2
It is easy for me to think about X as mine. DPO3
Perceived environmental
responsibility
I feel a moral obligation to engage in protecting the
environment of X.
PER1 Lee (2008) and
Onwezen
et al. (2013)
I think I have responsibility in protecting the environment of X. PER2
I should be responsible for protecting the environment of X. PER3
Environmental protection of X starts with me. PER4
I’m willing to take up responsibility to protect the environment
of X.
PER5
Place dependence I enjoy visiting X more than any other destination. PD1 Ramkissoon et al.
(2013);
Tonge
et al. (2015)
X is the best destination for the activities I like to do. PD2
I wouldn’t substitute any other destination for doing the type
of things I do at X.
PD3
No other destination can compare to X. PD4
Place identity I am very attached to X. PI1 Tonge et al. (2015);
Xu and
Zhang (2016)
I identify strongly with X. PI2
I feel visiting X is part of my life. PI3
X is very special to me. PI4
Tourist environmentally
responsible
behavioral intentions
I will discuss environmental protection issues of X
with companions.
TERBI1 Fan et al. (2014)
I will try to convince companions to adopt positive behaviors
in the environment of X.
TERBI2
I will report activities damaging the environment of X. TERBI3
When I see trash at X, I will pick it up. TERBI4
Note:X¼Hangzhou.
JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE TOURISM 21
Appendix B. Demographic profile of respondents.
Variable Category Gen Z (N ¼549) Older generation (N ¼547)
Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
Gender Male 273 49.7% 271 49.5%
Female 276 50.3% 276 50.5%
Age (Year of birth) 2005–2009 32 5.8% ——
2000–2004 260 47.4% ——
1995–1999 257 46.8% ——
1990–1994 —— 149 27.2%
1985–1989 —— 126 23.0%
1975–1984 —— 167 30.5%
1974 or before —— 105 19.2%
Education Junior high or below 26 4.7% 51 9.3%
Senior high, TAFE or similar 51 9.3% 81 14.8%
Diploma education 197 35.9% 130 23.8%
Undergraduate 249 45.4% 216 39.5%
Postgraduate 26 4.7% 69 12.6%
Appendix C. Results of model comparison test.
Model category Antecedents of TERBI R
2
: TERBI
Full sample
(N¼1096)
Gen Z
(N¼549)
Older generations
(N¼547)
M
0
: TPB ATT, SN, and PBC 0.5 0.527 0.477
M
1
: PAB DPO and ATT 0.389 0.396 0.407
M
2
: our conceptual model ATT, SN, PBC, DPO, PER, and PA 0.548 0.565 0.537
Note: PAB ¼psychological ownership-attitude-behavior model.
Appendix D. Results of measurement model between gen Z and older generations.
Construct Gen Z (N¼549) Older generations (N¼547)
Loading tvalues CR AVE aLoading tvalues CR AVE a
ATT 0.933 0.777 0.931 0.932 0.775 0.931
ATT1 0.835 25.215 0.852 26.014
ATT2 0.913 29.665 0.91 29.371
ATT3 0.916 29.838 0.898 28.649
ATT4 0.858 —0.86 —
SN 0.931 0.771 0.930 0.935 0.783 0.934
SN1 0.829 24.802 0.827 26.032
SN2 0.908 29.196 0.92 32.427
SN3 0.916 29.67 0.905 31.327
SN4 0.857 —0.885 —
PBC 0.888 0.664 0.888 0.906 0.707 0.906
PBC1 0.788 21.046 0.852 24.005
PBC2 0.813 21.967 0.86 24.327
PBC3 0.819 22.201 0.814 22.433
PBC4 0.839 —0.837 —
DPO 0.877 0.704 0.875 0.88 0.71 0.877
DPO1 0.82 21.734 0.807 21.086
DPO2 0.845 22.391 0.895 23.257
DPO3 0.852 —0.823 —
PER 0.925 0.713 0.924 0.915 0.684 0.914
PER1 0.854 20.152 0.777 19.2
PER2 0.9 21.272 0.869 21.97
PER3 0.848 19.981 0.863 21.803
PER4 0.878 20.753 0.849 21.359
PER5 0.731 —0.771 —
PA 0.832 0.712 0.933 0.789 0.651 0.923
PD 0.836 15.274 0.929 0.767 0.928 0.808 14.15 0.928 0.763 0.926
PD1 0.857 25.546 0.819 24.149
PD2 0.903 27.932 0.913 29.283
(continued)
22 H. QIU ET AL.
Appendix D. Continued.
Construct Gen Z (N¼549) Older generations (N¼547)
Loading tvalues CR AVE aLoading tvalues CR AVE a
PD3 0.896 27.585 0.901 28.597
PD4 0.845 —0.857 —
PI 0.852 —0.923 0.751 0.923 0.806 —0.918 0.736 0.917
PI1 0.856 24.746 0.844 23.301
PI2 0.873 25.533 0.894 25.312
PI3 0.903 26.913 0.873 24.488
PI4 0.833 —0.818 —
TERBI 0.872 0.630 0.867 0.856 0.597 0.854
TERBI1 0.748 18.098 0.786 17.225
TERBI2 0.851 20.956 0.781 17.118
TERBI3 0.791 19.314 0.795 17.412
TERBI4 0.781 —0.728 —
Goodness-of-fit
indices
v
2
/df ¼2.028, RMR ¼0.026, RMSEA ¼0.043,
NFI ¼0.940, IFI ¼0.969, TLI ¼0.965,
CFI ¼0.969
v
2
/df ¼2.481, RMR ¼0.024, RMSEA ¼0.052,
NFI ¼0.926, IFI ¼0.954, TLI ¼0.948,
CFI ¼0.954
Note:CR¼composite reliability; AVE ¼average variance extracted; a¼Cronbach’s alpha.
Appendix E. Results of discriminant validity between gen Z and older generations.
Construct Gen Z (N¼549) Older generations (N¼547)
ATT SN PBC DPO PER PA TERBI ATT SN PBC DPO PER PA TERBI
ATT 0.881 0.88
SN 0.583 0.878 0.544 0.885
PBC 0.397 0.490 0.815 0.271 0.324 0.841
DPO 0.265 0.351 0.409 0.839 0.290 0.232 0.508 0.843
PER 0.556 0.565 0.516 0.316 0.844 0.545 0.573 0.450 0.321 0.827
PA 0.433 0.585 0.696 0.566 0.475 0.844 0.467 0.479 0.681 0.658 0.497 0.807
TERBI 0.531 0.628 0.599 0.472 0.556 0.722 0.794 0.523 0.477 0.555 0.507 0.541 0.708 0.773
Note: Diagonally positioned values in bold denotes the square roots of AVEs.
Appendix F. Results of structural model between gen Z and older generations.
Hypotheses Paths Gen Z (N¼549) Older generations (N¼547)
Standardized
coefficient t-value Results
Standardized
coefficient t-value Results
H
1
ATT!TERBI 0.129 2.856 Supported 0.179 3.69 Supported
H
2
SN!TERBI 0.228 5.171 Supported 0.0952.392 Supported
H
3
PBC!TERBI 0.158 3.387 Supported 0.19 3.84 Supported
H
4
DPO!TERBI 0.055 0.865 Not supported 0.052 0.65 Not supported
H
5
DPO!ATT 0.011 0.184 Not supported 0.05 0.671 Not supported
H
6
PER!TERBI 0.147 3.207 Supported 0.16 3.336 Supported
H
7
PER!ATT 0.471 9.772 Supported 0.453 9.517 Supported
H
8
DPO!PER 0.395 8.18 Supported 0.391 8.163 Supported
H
9
PA!TERBI 0.387 6.232 Supported 0.377 4.736 Supported
H
10
PA!ATT 0.214 3.491 Supported 0.294 3.8 Supported
H
11
DPO!PA 0.638 11.913 Supported 0.723 12.518 Supported
Goodness-of-fit
indices
v
2
/df ¼2.915, RMR ¼0.102,
RMSEA ¼0.059, NFI ¼0.912,
IFI ¼0.941, TLI ¼0.934, CFI ¼0.940
v
2
/df ¼3.244, RMR ¼0.074,
RMSEA ¼0.064, NFI ¼0.901,
IFI ¼0.930, TLI ¼0.922, CFI ¼0.929
R
2
: TERBI 0.565 0.537
Note:p<0.05, p<0.01, p<0.001.
JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE TOURISM 23
Appendix G. Specific mediation analysis between gen Z and older generations.
Specific indirect path Age category
Point
estimate
Product of coefficients
Bootstrap
Support?
PCI BCI
SE zLower Upper Lower Upper
DPO!PER!TERBI Gen Z 0.054 0.02 2.700 0.018 0.097 0.02 0.099 Yes
Older generations 0.046 0.018 2.556 0.015 0.085 0.017 0.089 Yes
DPO!PER!ATT!TERBI Gen Z 0.022 0.01 2.200 0.005 0.042 0.006 0.044 Yes
Older generations 0.023 0.008 2.875 0.009 0.041 0.01 0.044 Yes
DPO!ATT!TERBI Gen Z 0.001 0.008 0.125 0.013 0.019 0.013 0.019 No
Older generations 0.007 0.01 0.700 0.027 0.014 0.029 0.012 No
DPO!PA!TERBI Gen Z 0.231 0.052 4.442 0.137 0.341 0.139 0.345 Yes
Older generations 0.199 0.049 4.061 0.114 0.31 0.113 0.308 Yes
DPO!PA!ATT!TERBI Gen Z 0.016 0.008 2.000 0.003 0.034 0.004 0.039 Yes
Older generations 0.028 0.011 2.545 0.009 0.052 0.011 0.059 Yes
Appendix H. Goodness of fit indices for all tested models.
Model v2/df RMSEA NFI IFI TLI CFI
Unconstrained 3.079 0.044 0.907 0.935 0.928 0.935
Measurement weights 3.041 0.043 0.906 0.935 0.929 0.934
Structural weights 3.032 0.043 0.905 0.934 0.930 0.934
Structural covariances 3.035 0.043 0.904 0.933 0.929 0.933
Structural residuals 3.058 0.043 0.902 0.932 0.929 0.932
Measurement residuals 3.239 0.045 0.893 0.924 0.922 0.924
Appendix I. Significance of tested models compared to unconstrained model
Model DF v
2
pNFI Delta-1 IFI Delta-2 RFI Rho-1 TLI Rho-2
Measurement weights 24 38.240 0.033 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001
Structural weights 36 66.442 0.001 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002
Structural covariances 42 87.236 0.000 0.003 0.003 0.002 0.002
Structural residuals 48 127.918 0.000 0.004 0.004 0.001 0.001
Measurement residuals 80 402.434 0.000 0.014 0.014 0.005 0.006
24 H. QIU ET AL.
