| Literature DB >> 31872131 |
Shahid Bashir1, Muddasar Ghani Khwaja2, Jamshid Ali Turi3, Hira Toheed4.
Abstract
This study aims to contribute to the development of an extended theory of planned behavior to understand the indicators of consumer behavior. A conceptual framework highlighting four study constructs (i.e., personal norms, intention towards green hotels, environmental consciousness, and green consumer behavior) was tested using 394 general Malaysian lodging consumers. The findings indicate that to devise green branding strategies for the hotels, the managers must first consider how the environmental consciousness of consumers positively affects their personal norms and behavior towards green hotels. Second, consumers' personal norms and behavioral intention towards environmentally responsible lodging positively affect their green behavior. Third, Personal norms mediates the significant positive relationship between; environmental consciousness and behavioral intention towards environmentally responsible lodging of a consumer; and environmental consciousness and green consumer behavior. Lastly, behavioral intention towards environmentally responsible lodging mediates the significant positive relationship between a consumer's personal norms and green consumer behavior.Entities:
Keywords: Business; Economics; Environment consciousness; Environmental consciousness; Environmentally responsible lodging; Green customer behavior; Green hotels; Perceived norms; Psychology; Sociology; Tourism
Year: 2019 PMID: 31872131 PMCID: PMC6909088 DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.e02974
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Heliyon ISSN: 2405-8440
The researches on green hotels that contribute to extend TBP.
| Author(S) | Study Methods | Statistical Test | Contribution to extend TBP |
|---|---|---|---|
| 428 general U.S. lodging consumers participated in the study through a web based survey. | Structural Equation Modeling | Attitude, subjective norm, and perceived behavioral control positively affect consumer's intention to stay at green hotels. | |
| 559 Taiwanese consumers participated in the study through a web based survey via | Structural Equation Modeling | Consumers' environmental concerns indeed exert a positive influence on their attitude toward green hotels, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control as well as their perceived moral obligation, which in turn influence their intention to visit green hotels as expected. | |
| 458 hotel guests from Taiwan participated in the Survey | Structural Equation Modeling | Consumer's environmental protection consciousness positively affects their green consumer behavior. | |
| 428 general U.S. lodging consumers, who were faculty members working at an institution of higher education in the Midwestern, participated in the study through a web based survey. | Structural Equation Modeling | Consumer's personal norms explain their decision-making processes regarding their intentions to visit a green hotel. | |
| 384 general U.S. lodging consumers participated in the study through a web based survey. | Structural Equation Modeling | Attitude, subjective norm, and perceived behavioral control positively affect consumer's intentions to Visit an Environmentally Responsible Hotel. | |
| 382 U.S. consumers who were at least 18 years old participated in the study through a web based survey via | Structural Equation Modeling | Consumers generally behave positively towards environmentally focused attributes to visit at green hotels. | |
| 400 U.S. consumers participated in the study through a web based survey via Amazon's Mechanical Turk (MTurk). | Structural Equation Modeling | Consumer's willingness to sacrifice for the environment affects their green hotel visit intention. | |
| 620 educated consumers of the urban areas in India participated in the study through a survey | Structural Equation Modeling | TPB fully supported the consumers' intention to buy green products which in turn influences their green purchase behavior. |
Figure 1Conceptual model.
Respondent's Demographic profile.
| Number | Percentage (%) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | Male | 235 | 59.6% |
| Female | 159 | 40.4% | |
| Age (in years) | 20–30 | 52 | 13.2% |
| 31–40 | 76 | 19.3% | |
| 41–50 | 133 | 33.8% | |
| 51–60 | 49 | 12.2% | |
| Above 61 | 84 | 21.5% | |
| Education | Below undergraduate degree | 141 | 35.8% |
| Above undergraduate degree | 253 | 64.2% | |
| Income level (yearly) | Blow £30,000 | 9 | 2.3% |
| £30,000–£50,000 | 84 | 21.2% | |
| Above £50,000 | 301 | 76.4% | |
| Frequency of green hotel stay | Below 2 times in a year | 72 | 18.3% |
| 2–6 times in a year | 191 | 48.4% | |
| 7–11 times in a year | 74 | 18.7% | |
| Above 11 times in a year | 57 | 14.5% | |
Data normality (N = 394).
| Variables | N | Min | Max | M | SD | Skewness | Kurtosis | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Statistic | Statistic | Statistic | Statistic | Statistic | Statistic | Std. Error | Statistic | Std. Error | |
| Personal Norms (PN) | 394 | 1.00 | 5.00 | 2.9553 | 0.8182 | -.071 | .129 | .006 | .263 |
| Environmental Consciousness (EC) | 394 | 1.00 | 5.00 | 2.8947 | 0.7995 | .075 | .129 | -.471 | .263 |
| Behavioral Intention (BI) | 394 | 1.00 | 5.00 | 2.2675 | 0.7879 | .741 | .129 | .511 | .263 |
| Green Consumer Behavior (GCB) | 394 | 1.00 | 5.00 | 3.9395 | 0.7192 | -.644 | .129 | 1.304 | .263 |
The summary of discriminate validity results.
| Constructs | AVE | Construct Reliability | Mean | Standard Deviation | PN | EC | BI | GCB |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PN | 0.639 | 0.90 | 3.49 | 0.93 | 1 | |||
| EC | 0.621 | 0.88 | 3.42 | 0.81 | 0.567** | 1 | ||
| BI | 0.611 | 0.86 | 3.40 | 0.96 | 0.518** | 0.580** | 1 | |
| GCB | 0.637 | 0.85 | 3.04 | 0.90 | 0.585** | 0.701** | 0.688** | 1 |
Note: **p < 0.01(two-tailed test).
PN = Personal Norms, EC = Environmental Consciousness, BI = Behavioral Intention, GCB = Green Consumer Behavior.
The summary of overall CFA results.
| Construct | Items | Loadings |
|---|---|---|
| Personal Norms (PN) | Staying at a green hotel and using environment friendly products/services would make me a better person (PN1). | 0.80 |
| Instead of conventional hotel, staying at green hotel will make me feel as a morally obliged person (PN2). | 0.83 | |
| Saving environment should be the first priority for person like me (PN3). | 0.84 | |
| Regardless of what other people do, I feel staying at green hotels as a moral obligation (PN5). | 0.78 | |
| Saving energy as much as possible is my personal obligation (PN6). | 0.74 | |
| Environmental Consciousness (EC) | While thinking of the industries that are polluting the environment, I feel frustrated and angry (EC1). | 0.75 |
| While Comparing two similar products, I tend to choose an environment friendly one, even though it has more price (EC2). | 0.78 | |
| I will refuse to buy a product that can seriously damage the environment at the time of its usage (EC3). | 0.85 | |
| Environmentally certified products are always my first priority, even though it has more prices (EC4). | 0.81 | |
| I am concerned about my actions to improve the environment (EC7). | 0.75 | |
| I am often concerned about and absorb environmental knowledge and information (EC8). | 0.60 | |
| Behavioral Intention (BI) | I am willing to stay at a green hotel when traveling (BI1). | 0.75 |
| I plan to stay at a green hotel when traveling (BI2). | 0.83 | |
| I plan to recommend green hotel to others (BI3). | 0.79 | |
| I will make an effort to stay at a green hotel when traveling (BI4). | 0.76 | |
| Green Consumer Behavior (GCB) | It is acceptable for the hotel I am staying at to inform me that it does not actively provide disposable toiletries (GCB1). | 0.72 |
| It is acceptable for the hotel I am staying at to inform me that they will not actively change the bed sheets and quilt covers during my stay (GCB2). | 0.84 | |
| It is acceptable for the hotel I am staying at to inform me of the reuse of towels and bath towels (GCB3). | 0.83 | |
| It is acceptable for the hotel I am staying at to inform me of the reduction of water pressure during the night (GCB5). | 0.69 |
Model fit statistics: χ2 = 328.754, df = 146, p < 0.05, CFI = 0.96, TLI = 0.955, NFI = 0.931, RMSEA = 0.056, SRMR = 0.048.
Note: The following items were eliminated from the model, as their scale value was less than 0.60:
While travelling, I bear in my mind about feeling obliged with the nature and environment (PN4); I follow the key points of recycling and classify recycled waste at home (EC5); I often purchase products that are over-packaged (EC6); It is acceptable for the hotel I am staying at to inform me that it does not provide bottled mineral water (GCB4).
Summaries of Estimates – Direct Effect Model Assessment (P < 0.05, t > 1.96).
| Paths | Standardized Coefficient (β) | S.E | C.R |
|---|---|---|---|
| PN → GCB | .724 | .038 | 18.936 |
| EC → PN | .834 | .058 | 14.413 |
| PN → BI | .161 | .032 | 5.098 |
| BI → GCB | .141 | .048 | 2.945 |
| EC → GCB | .517 | .057 | 9.096 |
| EC → PN → BI | 0.391 | .056 | 6.993 |
| EC → PN → GCB | 0.422 | .055 | 6.914 |
| PN → BI → GCB | 0.157 | .034 | 2.192 |
Model fit statistics: χ2 = 15.532, df = 1, CFI = 0.98, NFI = 0.97.
Note: One path (EC → BI) was eliminated from the model to confirm an adequate structural equation model fit, and EC → BI → GCB cannot be tested for this study therefore.