| Literature DB >> 32731381 |
Juan Gabriel Martínez-Navalón1, Vera Gelashvili1, José Ramón Saura1.
Abstract
The main aim of the present study was to analyze whether publications related to environmental sustainability in social media directly and positively influence user satisfaction with and trust in tourism businesses. Our second goal was to determine whether the influence of environmental sustainability and satisfaction is moderated by users' gender. Data collection was performed using a questionnaire. The questionnaire responses were analyzed using the partial least squares-structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) methodology. The results have shown that there is a positive relationship between environmental sustainability, satisfaction, and trust generated by tourism companies through their publications on social media, and that this relationship is not conditioned by users' gender. The results of the present study contribute to the literature by bridging the gap in research on tourism enterprises and their strategies regarding social media publications. Our findings also provide important implications related to the content of environmental sustainability strategies and social media communication for tourism companies.Entities:
Keywords: SEM; environmental sustainability; satisfaction; social media; trust
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32731381 PMCID: PMC7432117 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph17155417
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Research model used in the present study.
Characteristics of the study participants (n = 351).
| Classification Variable | Variable | Frequency | Percentage |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | Female | 182 | 52% |
| Male | 169 | 48% | |
| Age | 18–30 | 70 | 19.9% |
| 31–45 | 184 | 52.4% | |
| 46–55 | 62 | 17.6% | |
| 56–65 | 19 | 5.4% | |
| >65 | 16 | 4.6% | |
| Employment | Student | 32 | 9.1% |
| Housewife/man | 14 | 3.9% | |
| Unemployed | 27 | 7.6% | |
| Employed | 219 | 62.4% | |
| Self-Employed | 59 | 16.8% | |
| Minutes devoted to social media per day | <30 | 100 | 28.5% |
| 30–60 | 130 | 37% | |
| 60–90 | 40 | 11.4% | |
| 90–120 | 36 | 10.3% | |
| >120 | 45 | 12.8% | |
| Social media used | 126 | 35.9% | |
| 310 | 88.3% | ||
| 210 | 59.8% | ||
| 160 | 45.6% | ||
| YouTube | 191 | 54.4% | |
| Snapchat | 18 | 5.1% | |
| 65 | 18.5% |
Measurement items first order.
| Constructs | Items | Correlation Loading | CA | CR | rho_A | AVE |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Satisfaction | (SAT1) I am satisfied with the knowledge I get from the social media of the tourism companies I follow. | 0.885 *** | 0.790 | 0.904 | 0.820 | 0.824 |
| (SAT3) The social media of the tourism companies I follow meet my expectations. | 0.930 *** | |||||
| Honesty | (HON1) The tourism companies that I follow on social media keep their promises. | 0.933 *** | 0.805 | 0.832 | 0.832 | 0.835 |
| (HON3) The social media of the tourism companies I follow are managed in an ethical and transparent way. | 0.894 *** | |||||
| Benevolence | (BEN1) The social media of the tourism companies I follow offer beneficial advice and recommendations. | 0.884 *** | 0.883 | 0.928 | 0.885 | 0.811 |
| (BEN2) The tourism companies that I follow in social media develop actions taking into account how they will affect their interest groups. | 0.871 *** | |||||
| (BEN3) The tourism companies I follow on social media are concerned about the interests and benefits, both present and future, of their stakeholders. | 0.956 *** | |||||
| Competence | (COM3) The tourism companies that I follow have a knowledge of their users that allows them to adapt to users’ needs. | 0.904 *** | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Environmental Sustainability | (SUST1) The tourism companies that I follow on social media have recycling policies. | 0.740 *** | 0.882 | 0.914 | 0.894 | 0.680 |
| (SOST2) The social media accounts of the tourism companies that I follow promote positive environmental ethics. | 0.869 *** | |||||
| (SUST3) The tourism companies that I follow in social media value and protect the environment. | 0.859 *** | |||||
| (SUST4) The social media of the tourism companies I follow publish pollution awareness messages. | 0.834 *** | |||||
| (SUST5) The social media of the tourism companies that I follow defend the diversity of nature and promote its value and protection. | 0.816 *** |
Note: CA = Cronbach’s alpha; CR = Composite Reliability; rho_A = Dijkstra-Henseler indicator; AVE = Average Variance Extracted; *** p-value < 0.001.
Measurement of the first-order model (discriminant validity).
| Fornell-Larcker Criterion | Heterotrait-Monotrait Ratio (HTMT) | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructs | BEN | COM | HON | SAT | SUST | BEN | COM | HON | SAT | SUST |
| BEN | 9.00 | |||||||||
| COM | 0.693 | 1.00 | 0.737 | |||||||
| HON | 0.739 | 0.715 | 0.914 | 0.874 | 0.807 | |||||
| SAT | 0.714 | 0.644 | 0.727 | 0.908 | 0.850 | 0.716 | 0.894 | |||
| SUST | 0.656 | 0.538 | 0.580 | 0.598 | 0.825 | 0.728 | 0.561 | 0.669 | 0.683 | |
Note: BEN = Benevolence; COM = Competence; HON = Honesty; SAT = Satisfaction; SUST = Environmental.
Second-order measurement model of the formative construct.
| Construct | Dimensions | Correlation | CA | CR | AVE | VIF |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TRUST | Honesty (HON) | 0.483 *** | n/a | n/a | n/a | 2.669 |
| Benevolence (BEN) | 0.432 *** | 2.511 | ||||
| Competence (COM) | 0.184 ** | 2.328 |
Note: CA = Cronbach’s alpha; CR = Composite Reliability; AVE = Average Variance Extracted; VIF = Variance inflation factor; ** p-value < 0.01, *** p-value < 0.001; n/a = Not applicable.
Results for Hypotheses 1–2.
| Path Coeff (β) | Statistics t (β/STDEV) | f2 | Confidence Interval | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5.0% | 95.0% | ||||
| H1. Environmental sustainability → Satisfaction | 0.600 *** | 12.227 | 0.563 | 0.723 | 0.823 |
| H2. Satisfaction → Trust | 0.779 *** | 25.992 | 1.547 | 0.512 | 0.675 |
R2: Trust = 0.607; Satisfaction = 0.360; Adjusted R2: Trust = 0.606; Satisfaction = 0.358; Q2: Trust = 0.460; Satisfaction = 0.275. Students in single queue *** p < 0.001.
Results of invariance measurement testing using permutation.
| Constructs | Invariance | Composition Invariance | Partial Invariance | Equal Mean Assessment | Equal Variance Assessment | Full Measurement Invariance Established | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C = 1 | Confidence Interval | Differences | Confidence Interval | Equal | Differences | Confidence Interval | Equal | ||||
| TRUST | Yes | 0.999 | (0.975/1.000) | Yes | −0.043 | (−0.219/0.221) | Yes | 0.046 | (−0.482/0.469) | Yes | Yes |
| SAT | Yes | 1.000 | (0.999/1.000) | Yes | −0.144 | (−0.225/0.219) | Yes | −0.074 | (−0.393/0.390) | Yes | Yes |
| SUST | Yes | 1.000 | (0.997/1.000) | Yes | −0.010 | (−0.217/0.221) | Yes | −0.197 | (−0.403/0.400) | Yes | Yes |
Note: SAT = Satisfaction; SUST = Environmental Sustainability.
Result for Hypothesis 3.
| Path Coefficient | Confidence Interval | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Relationship | Men | Women | Difference | PLS-MGA | Permutation Test | Parametric Test | Supported | |
| SAT→TRUST | 0.752 | 0.806 | −0.054 | (−0.117; 0.118) | 0.821 | 0.360 | 0.185 | NO/NO/NO |
| SUST→SAT | 0.593 | 0.609 | −0.016 | (−0.194; 0.192) | 0.569 | 0.872 | 0.435 | NO/NO/NO |
Note: SAT = Satisfaction; SUST = Environmental Sustainability.
Figure 2Proposed research model results.