| Literature DB >> 31878113 |
Abstract
The present research was an empirical endeavor to explore the effect of green spaces on the traveler retention process and to establish a theory connecting such green spaces, psychological resilience, attitude, brand attachment, and retention in the hotel industry. A quantitative approach was employed to achieve study objectives. Our findings from the structural analysis indicated that green spaces as nature-based solution significantly influence psychological resilience. In addition, such relationship contributes to increasing positive attitude, strengthening brand-self connection and brand prominence, and building traveler retention. A salient role of attitude in determining retention was found. A further analysis (metric invariance) revealed that the linkage from green spaces to psychological resilience was moderated by hotel price reasonableness, and the association became stronger when guests feel that hotel price is reasonable. Overall, this research successfully verified the importance of a hotel's green spaces and its role in guest psychological and affective responses and behaviors.Entities:
Keywords: brand prominence; brand-self connection; green spaces; hotel guests; hotel price; psychological resilience; retention
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31878113 PMCID: PMC6981477 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph17010133
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Proposed conceptual model and research hypotheses.
Measurement items and factor loadings (n = 403).
| Items | Factor Loadings (Standardized) |
|---|---|
| Green spaces 1 | 0.856 |
| Psychological resilience 1 | 0.884 |
| Attitude 1 | 0.812 |
| Brand-self connection 1 | 0.851 |
| Brand prominence 1 | 0.777 |
| Price reasonableness 1 | 0.716 |
| Guest retention 1 | 0.869 |
Measurement model assessment and correlations (n = 403).
| Constructs | (a) | (b) | (c) | (d) | (e) | (f) | (g) | Mean | CR |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (a) Green spaces | 1.000 | – | – | – | – | – | – | 4.883 | 0.880 |
| (b) Psychological resilience | 0.542 a | 1.000 | – | – | – | – | – | 4.953 | 0.862 |
| (c) Attitude | 0.468 | 0.601 | 1.000 | – | – | – | – | 5.507 | 0.875 |
| (d) Brand-self connection | 0.449 | 0.668 | 0.627 | 1.000 | – | – | – | 4.779 | 0.867 |
| (e) Brand prominence | 0.355 | 0.573 | 0.571 | 0.670 | 1.000 | – | – | 4.537 | 0.810 |
| (f) Hotel price reasonableness | 0.090 | 0.203 | 0.203 | 0.161 | 0.385 | 1.000 | – | 4.012 | 0.856 |
| (g) Traveler retention | 0.415 | 0.592 | 0.629 | 0.703 | 0.734 | 0.287 | 1.000 | 4.863 | 0.905 |
Goodness-of-fit statistics for the measurement model: χ2 = 412.876, df = 147, χ2/df = 2.809, p < 0.001, RMSEA = 0.067, CFI = 0.952, IFI = 0.952, TLI = 0.938, SD: standard deviation, CR: composite reliability, AVE: average variance extracted, a Correlations between variables are below the diagonal. b Squared correlations are within the parentheses.
Figure 2Results of the structural model and baseline model assessment (n = 403). Goodness-of-fit statistics for the structural model: χ2 = 381.640, df = 238, p < 0.001, χ2/df = 3.469, RMSEA = 0.078, CFI = 0.943, IFI = 0.943, TLI = 0.930. Goodness-of-fit statistics for the baseline model: χ2 = 593.956, df = 231, p < 0.001, χ2/df = 2.571, RMSEA = 0.063, CFI = 0.923, IFI = 0.924, TLI = 0.909, ** p < 0.01.
Structural model estimation (n = 403).
| Proposed Paths | Coefficients | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| H1 | Green spaces | → | Psychological resilience | 0.626 | 11.042 ** |
| H2 | Psychological resilience | → | Attitude | 0.831 | 12.964 ** |
| H3 | Attitude | → | Brand-self connection | 0.878 | 13.150 ** |
| H4 | Attitude | → | Brand prominence | 0.827 | 13.083 ** |
| H5 | Attitude | → | Traveler retention | 0.038 | 0.243 |
| H6 | Brand-self connection | → | Traveler retention | 0.492 | 3.878 ** |
| H7 | Brand prominence | → | Traveler retention | 0.228 | 2.222 * |
| Total variance explained: | |||||
Goodness-of-fit statistics for the structural model: χ2 = 381.640, df = 238, p < 0.001, χ2/df = 3.469, RMSEA = 0.078, CFI = 0.943, IFI = 0.943, TLI = 0.930. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01.
Indirect impact and total impact assessment (n = 403).
| Indirect Effects of | on | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Psychological Resilience | Attitude | Brand-Self Connection | Brand Prominence | Traveler Retention | |
| Green spaces | – | 0.521 ** | 0.457 ** | 0.430 ** | 0.343 ** |
| Psychological resilience | – | – | 0.730 ** | 0.687 ** | 0.547 ** |
| Attitude | – | – | – | – | 0.620 ** |
| Total impact on traveler retention: | |||||
Goodness-of-fit statistics for the structural model: χ2 = 381.640, df = 238, p < 0.001, χ2/df = 3.469, RMSEA = 0.078, CFI = 0.943, IFI = 0.943, TLI = 0.930, * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01.
Baseline model estimation and invariance test results.
| Paths | High Group of Hotel Price Reasonableness | Low Group of Hotel Price Reasonableness | Baseline Model | Nested Model | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| β | t-Value | β | t-Value | |||
| Green spaces → Psychological resilience | 0.726 | 9.694 ** | 0.553 | 7.596 ** | χ2 (231) = 593.956 | χ2 (232) = 598.710 |
Chi-square difference test: a Δχ2 (1) = 4.754, p < 0.05 (H8: Supported), Goodness-of-fit statistics for the baseline model: χ2 = 593.956, df = 231, p < 0.001, χ2/df = 2.571, RMSEA = 0.063, CFI = 0.923, IFI = 0.924, TLI = 0.909, ** p < 0.01.