| Literature DB >> 35756259 |
Abstract
The rapid increase in globalization has fostered the emerging ecological challenges to halt human civilization, substantially highlighting the need for environmental management. The study's primary objective is to analyze the impact of environmental perception of corporate social responsibility (CSR) and attitude toward environmental CSR on sustainable tourism development while considering the mediating role of national park identification goals and employee pro-environmental behavior. The data was collected from the 338 employees working in the Chinese tourist firms'. The study variable's reliability and validity was checked by using Composite Reliability (CR) and Average Variance Extracted (AVE). Study results show that environmental CSR perception and attitude toward environmental CSR positively impact sustainable tourism development, national park Goal identification, and employee pro-environmental behavior. National Park goal identification and employee pro-environmental behavior mediate between sustainable tourism development and environmental perception of corporate social responsibility and attitude toward environmental CSR.Entities:
Keywords: attitude toward environmental CSR; environmental CSR perception; green innovation; sustainable development; tourism
Year: 2022 PMID: 35756259 PMCID: PMC9226646 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.930973
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Psychol ISSN: 1664-1078
FIGURE 1Study conceptual framework.
Demographic characteristics.
| Items | Frequency ( | (%) |
|
| ||
| Male | 195 | 50.3 |
| Female | 193 | 49.7 |
|
| ||
| 19–30 | 49 | 12.6 |
| 31–40 | 107 | 27.6 |
| 41–50 | 100 | 25.8 |
| 51–60 | 85 | 21.9 |
| >60 | 47 | 12.1 |
|
| ||
| Intermediate | 70 | 18 |
| Bachelor | 142 | 36.6 |
| Master | 114 | 29.4 |
| M.Phil./Others | 62 | 16 |
|
| ||
| Single | 192 | 49.5 |
| Married | 196 | 50.5 |
Reliability and validity analysis.
| Construct | Items | Loading | α | CR | AVE |
| Environmental CSR perception | ECP_1 | 0.723 | 0.824 | 0.824 | 0.540 |
| ECP_2 | 0.748 | ||||
| ECP_3 | 0.736 | ||||
| ECP_4 | 0.731 | ||||
| Attitude toward environmental CSR | AEC_1 | 0.773 | 0.861 | 0.860 | 0.552 |
| AEC_2 | 0.714 | ||||
| AEC_3 | 0.767 | ||||
| AEC_4 | 0.712 | ||||
| AEC_5 | 0.748 | ||||
| National Park goal identification | NPGI_1 | 0.739 | 0.829 | 0.829 | 0.548 |
| NPGI_2 | 0.710 | ||||
| NPGI_3 | 0.717 | ||||
| NPGI_4 | 0.792 | ||||
| Employee pro-environmental behavior | EPEB_1 | 0.724 | 0.872 | 0.872 | 0.533 |
| EPEB_2 | 0.734 | ||||
| EPEB_3 | 0.748 | ||||
| EPEB_4 | 0.755 | ||||
| EPEB_5 | 0.680 | ||||
| EPEB_6 | 0.736 | ||||
| Sustainable tourism development | STD_1 | 0.727 | 0.877 | 0.877 | 0.543 |
| STD_2 | 0.796 | ||||
| STD_3 | 0.689 | ||||
| STD_4 | 0.751 | ||||
| STD_5 | 0.719 | ||||
| STD_6 | 0.734 |
Discriminant validity analysis (Fornell-Larcker and HTMT).
| Constructs | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| 1. Attitude toward environmental CSR |
| 0.619 | 0.684 | 0.675 | 0.687 |
| 2. Environmental CSR perception | 0.618 |
| 0.646 | 0.640 | 0.677 |
| 3. Employee pro-environmental behavior | 0.685 | 0.646 |
| 0.660 | 0.676 |
| 4. National Park goal identification | 0.677 | 0.641 | 0.661 |
| 0.665 |
| 5. Sustainable tourism development | 0.687 | 0.677 | 0.677 | 0.666 |
|
Values on the diagonal (italicized) represent the square root of the average variance extracted, while the off diagonals are correlations.
Variance influence factor.
| Constructs | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| 1. Attitude toward environmental CSR | 1.619 | 1.619 | 2.352 | ||
| 2. Environmental CSR perception | 1.619 | 1.619 | 2.071 | ||
| 3. Employee pro-environmental behavior | 2.375 | ||||
| 4. National Park goal identification | 2.320 | ||||
| 5. Sustainable tourism development |
FIGURE 2Graphical representation of assessment of measurement model.
Hypotheses testing direct effect.
| Hypothesis | Direct relationships | Std. | Std. error | ||
| H1 | ECP ➜ STD | 0.268 | 0.06 | 4.466 |
|
| H2 | ECP ➜ NPGI | 0.36 | 0.076 | 4.741 |
|
| H3 | ECP ➜ EPEB | 0.36 | 0.073 | 4.962 |
|
| H4 | AEC ➜ STD | 0.255 | 0.078 | 3.286 |
|
| H5 | AEC ➜ EPEB | 0.462 | 0.069 | 6.738 |
|
| H6 | AEC ➜ NPGI | 0.454 | 0.073 | 6.191 |
|
| H7 | NPGI ➜ STD | 0.185 | 0.072 | 2.575 |
|
| H8 | EPEB ➜ STD | 0.207 | 0.079 | 2.631 |
|
*Indicates significant paths: *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.
Hypotheses testing mediation effect.
| Hypothesis | Indirect relationships | Std. | Std. error | ||
| H7a | ECP ➜ NPGI ➜ STD | 0.067 | 0.031 | 2.119 |
|
| H7b | AEC ➜ NPGI ➜ STD | 0.084 | 0.036 | 2.303 |
|
| H8a | ECP ➜ EPEB ➜ STD | 0.075 | 0.036 | 2.091 |
|
| H8b | AEC ➜ EPEB ➜ STD | 0.096 | 0.041 | 2.353 |
|
*Indicates significant paths: *p < 0.05.
FIGURE 3Graphical representation of the structural model.