| Literature DB >> 33956794 |
Mustafa Demir1, Husam Rjoub2, Mehmet Yesiltas3.
Abstract
The paper aimed at examining the influence of consumer's environmental awareness on their intention to visit green hotels in north Cyprus, the mediation role of consumption values. Research on eco-friendly hotels stressed that conventional hotels do not make available to consumers the environmental awareness and consumption values, whereas, there is possibility that these benefits might not sit well with the hotel potential consumers. Aside highlighting the features of green hotels, it is imperative to examine how consumers perceive consumption values. A questionnaire-based survey was used to examine the study's objectives. A total of 400 customers at 20 five-stars hotels that were randomly selected across the 3 big cities in north Cyprus (Girne, Lefkosa, and Magusa) were approached and invited to participate. The structural model was tested using structural equation modeling (SEM). The configuration model was analyzed using the partial least square (PLS) method. The finding from the SEM results shows that environmental concern directly and positively influenced the guests' intentions to visit hotels in north Cyprus. Moreover, functional and emotional values were found to mediate the relationship between environmental concern and knowledge on the guests' intention to visit north Cyprus hotels. Finally, the study suggest that the research will be of benefit to the managers of hotels in north Cyprus to know the significance of developing consumer's green awareness and to market it to the customers.Entities:
Year: 2021 PMID: 33956794 PMCID: PMC8101960 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0248815
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Respondents’ demographic analysis.
| Frequency | Percent | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | Female | 158 | 39.5 |
| Male | 242 | 60.5 | |
| Age | 18–24 years | 20 | 5.0 |
| 25–34 years | 51 | 12.8 | |
| 35–44 year | 158 | 39.5 | |
| 45–54 years | 119 | 29.8 | |
| 55–64 years | 41 | 10.25 | |
| 65 years and above | 11 | 2.75 | |
| Marital status | Single | 63 | 15.8 |
| Married | 223 | 55.8 | |
| Divorced/Widowed | 114 | 28.5 | |
| Level of Education | High school | 32 | 8.0 |
| Diploma | 202 | 50.5 | |
| Bachelor’s degree | 149 | 37.3 | |
| Master’s degree | 10 | 2.5 | |
| Doctoral degree | 7 | 1.75 | |
| Family size | 1 person | 18 | 4.5 |
| 2–3 persons | 271 | 67.8 | |
| 4–5 persons | 95 | 23.8 | |
| More than 5 persons | 16 | 4.0 | |
| Employment status | Student | 31 | 7.7 |
| Housewife | 69 | 17.3 | |
| Unemployed | 10 | 2.5 | |
| Business | 128 | 32.0 | |
| Full-time | 116 | 29.0 | |
| Part-time | 46 | 11.5 |
Constructs descriptive analysis: Mean and standard deviation.
| Constructs | Mean | Standard Deviation |
|---|---|---|
| Environmental Concern | 3.43 | 0.54 |
| Environmental knowledge | 4.03 | 0.50 |
| Emotional value | 4.00 | 0.50 |
| Functional value | 3.43 | 0.53 |
| Social value | 4.00 | 0.60 |
| Guest intention | 4.15 | 0.69 |
Validity and reliability for construct.
| Latent variable | Indicator | Loadings | AVE | CR | VIF |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Environmental Concern (EC) | EC1 | 0.791 | 0.58 | 0.906 | 2.08 |
| EC2 | 0.739 | 1.92 | |||
| EC3 | 0.822 | 2.70 | |||
| EC4 | 0.768 | 1.87 | |||
| EC5 | 0.78 | 2.52 | |||
| EC6 | 0.793 | 2.09 | |||
| EC7 | 0.72 | 1.45 | |||
| Environmental knowledge (EK) | EK1 | 0.913 | 0.80 | 0.922 | 2.70 |
| EK2 | 0.858 | 2.01 | |||
| EK3 | 0.907 | 2.62 | |||
| Emotional value (EV) | EV1 | 0.752 | 0.67 | 0.857 | 1.23 |
| EV2 | 0.854 | 2.06 | |||
| EV3 | 0.84 | 1.99 | |||
| Functional value (FV) | FVP1 | 0.783 | 0.65 | 0.937 | 2.39 |
| FVP2 | 0.593 | 1.53 | |||
| FVP3 | 0.817 | 2.64 | |||
| FVP4 | 0.74 | 1.96 | |||
| FVQ1 | 0.893 | 4.68 | |||
| FVQ2 | 0.877 | 4.33 | |||
| FVQ3 | 0.904 | 3.92 | |||
| FVQ4 | 0.813 | 3.57 | |||
| Guest intention (GI) | INT1 | 0.916 | 0.86 | 0.948 | 3.03 |
| INT2 | 0.951 | 4.53 | |||
| INT3 | 0.913 | 3.26 | |||
| Social value (SV) | SV1 | 0.876 | 0.76 | 0.926 | 2.78 |
| SV2 | 0.913 | 3.37 | |||
| SV3 | 0.87 | 2.50 | |||
| SV4 | 0.824 | 2.16 | |||
| Model fit statistic: SRMR = 0.07, X2 = 1864.78, NFI = 0.78, rms Theta = 0.16 | |||||
Note: AVE = Average variance extracted; CR = Composite reliability; SRMR = Standardized root mean square residual; X2 = Chi-square; NFI = Normed fit index; rms Theta = Root mean square error correlation; VIF = Variance inflation factor.
Discriminant validity (Fornell-Larcker criterion).
| EC | EK | EV | FV | GI | SV | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EC | ||||||
| EK | 0.80 | |||||
| EV | 0.59 | 0.60 | ||||
| FV | 0.66 | 0.64 | 0.67 | |||
| GI | 0.56 | 0.55 | 0.61 | 0.58 | ||
| SV | 0.64 | 0.62 | 0.65 | 0.70 | 0.52 |
Note: (a). EC = Environmental Concern; EK = Environmental knowledge; EV = Emotional value; FV = Functional value; GI = Guest intention; SV = Social value.
(b) The square root of AVE of every multi-item construct is shown on the main diagonal.
Heterotrait-Monotrait Ratio (HTMT).
| EC | EK | EV | FV | GI | SV | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EC | ||||||
| EK | 0.918 | |||||
| EV | 0.723 | 0.734 | ||||
| FV | 0.73 | 0.707 | 0.793 | |||
| GI | 0.621 | 0.616 | 0.727 | 0.62 | ||
| SV | 0.723 | 0.694 | 0.792 | 0.761 | 0.575 |
Note: EC = Environmental Concern; EK = Environmental knowledge; EV = Emotional value; FV = Functional value; GI = Guest intention; SV = Social value.
Effect size (F square).
| EC | EK | EV | FV | GI | SV | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EC | 0.059 | 0.115 | 0.012 | 0.106 | ||
| EK | 0.068 | 0.066 | 0.008 | 0.054 | ||
| EV | 0.082 | |||||
| FV | 0.026 | |||||
| GI | ||||||
| SV | 0.001 |
Note: EC = Environmental Concern; EK = Environmental knowledge; EV = Emotional value; FV = Functional value; GI = Guest intention; SV = Social value.
Hypothesis testing.
| Hypotheses | Beta | Decision | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| H1 | EC -> GI | 0.41 | 1.719*** | Supported |
| H2 | EK -> GI | 0.11 | 1.23 | Not supported |
| H3a | EC -> FV | 0.41 | 5.322* | Supported |
| H3b | EC -> SV | 0.41 | 4.352* | Supported |
| H3c | EC -> EV | 0.32 | 3.237* | Supported |
| H4a | EK -> FV | 0.31 | 3.767* | Supported |
| H4b | EK -> SV | 0.29 | 3.058* | Supported |
| H4c | EK -> EV | 0.34 | 3.554* | Supported |
| H5a | FV -> GI | 0.19 | 2.145** | Supported |
| H5b | SV -> GI | 0.03 | 0.38 | Not supported |
| H5c | EV -> GI | 0.31 | 4.226* | Supported |
| H6a | EC -> FV -> GI | 0.078 | 1.924*** | Supported |
| H6b | EK -> FV -> GI | 0.059 | 1.842*** | Supported |
| H7a | EC -> SV -> GI | 0.013 | 0.364 | Not supported |
| H7b | EK -> SV -> GI | 0.009 | 0.351 | Not supported |
| H8a | EC -> EV -> GI | 0.098 | 2.557** | Supported |
| H8b | EK -> EV -> GI | 0.105 | 2.666* | Supported |
Note: (a) EC = Environmental Concern; EK = Environmental knowledge; EV = Emotional value; FV = Functional value; GI = Guest intention; SV = Social value.
(b) *, **, *** denotes 1%, 5%, and 10% significant level respectively.
Fig 1Structural model results.