| Literature DB >> 36141660 |
Jinming Wang1, Jialu Dai1, Bart Julien Dewancker1, Weijun Gao1, Zaiqiang Liu2, Yue Zhou2.
Abstract
With the increasing number of travelling people, the behavior of tourists is having an increasing impact on the environment. Situational environmental education will influence the tourists' responsible environmental behavior, which positively or negatively affects the environment. The purpose of this study is to explore the impact of situational environmental education on tourists' responsible environmental behavior through a field study of Changchun Water Culture Ecological Park, combined with a survey and Zaltman metaphor elicitation technique (ZMET) interview method. There are 527 questionnaires, 89 pre-questionnaires, and 15 interview records collected. The results showed that: (1) All interviewees were impressed with the situational environmental education in the park. It can be concluded that the situational environmental education is easily accepted. The reason may be that, among the theme park users, 42.69% were aged 21-30 year's old, and 62.8% of the population have a college degree or above. (2) The standardized path coefficient of situational environmental education in tourist destinations for tourists' behavioral intention is 0.74, and the standardized path coefficient for responsible environmental behavior is 0.78, which is much higher than the standard value of 0.4. Therefore, situational environmental education has positive influences on the tourists' behavioral intention and responsible environmental behavior. (3) The sensitive analysis the tourists' behavioral intention has a positive relationship with attitudes toward environmental behaviors (0.66), subjective norm (0.53), and perceptual behavior control (0.52). The results of this study can provide a scientific basis for the planning and design of urban parks.Entities:
Keywords: mental models; planned behavior model; situational environmental education; tourists’ responsible environmental behavior
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36141660 PMCID: PMC9517645 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph191811388
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 4.614
Figure 1Maps and photos of the study area. (a) Location of Water Culture Ecological Park. (b) Aerial view of Water Culture Ecological Park. (c) Water purification flowchart. (d) Water purification plant sites.
Figure 2Flow chart of metaphor extraction technique.
Figure 3Structure of the relationship between situational environmental education and theory of planned behavior (TPB) model.
Data per the revised personal involvement inventory (RPII).
| NO. | Gender | Hometown | Occupation | RPII Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | M | Changchun | Student | 63 |
| B | M | Changchun | Student | 57 |
| C | F | Ningbo | Student | 58 |
| D | M | Xian | Student | 62 |
| E | M | Dandong | Student | 60 |
| F | F | Shandong | Salesperson | 58 |
| G | F | Changchun | Salesperson | 57 |
| H | M | Changchun | Salesperson | 64 |
| I | M | Changchun | Profession | 62 |
| J | M | Changchun | Housewife | 59 |
| K | F | Chengde | Staff | 63 |
| L | M | Dalian | Staff | 63 |
| M | F | Shanghai | Staff | 57 |
| N | F | Changchun | Staff | 62 |
| O | M | Changchun | Staff | 66 |
Zaltman metaphor elicitation technique (ZMET) procedure.
| Interview Steps | Main Contents of Operation Method |
|---|---|
| Storytelling | Stories are an important foundation for human memory and communication. After more than a week of in-depth thinking on study topics, the respondents were asked to express their thoughts on the study topic by telling stories through pictures. |
| Missing Image | Interviewees were asked to describe the picture they were looking for but did not find and explain the special meaning of that picture. For the pictures that the interviewee did not find, guided by the ladder method, data were extracted by the concept of method-purpose chain. |
| Sorting Task | Interviewees were asked to classify all the collected pictures, based on their understanding, and to explain the reason for such classifications and the meaning of the representative image. |
| Construct Elicitation | Applied the Kelly grid method to obtain the deep and relevant answers from the interviewees and drew out the relationship between these answers through the ladder method. The two approaches complement each other and can effectively help interviewees express their ideas. |
| Most Representative Picture | Interviewees selected the most representative pictures related to the theme from the pictures they bring and explain why it was chosen. It enables the researcher to understand the inner thoughts of the interviewee more accurately. |
| Opposite Image | Interviewees were asked to find a picture that is contrary to the research topic or is a negative concept of the pictures provided. If not, asked the interviewees to describe what kind of a picture it should be. |
| Sensory Image | Sensory impressions help us understand the external world and reproduce it in memory. Asked the interviewees to use hearing, taste, touch, sight, smell, color, and emotion to describe what the research topic should and should not be. |
| Individual Mind Map | Extracted all the constructs mentioned by the interviewee about the tourist destination landscape; then, followed the interviewee’s constructive logic to integrate the typical construct. Finally, set up the interviewee’s mind map of the destination. Within a certain time, the consensus model was handed over to the interviewees to ensure the model was consistent with the idea being presented. |
| Summary Image and Vignette | Interviewees were asked to select pictures with which they could express their important ideas and provide a summary picture. This process can be described and pointed out by the interviewees and handled by the researcher. |
| Consensus Map | Combine the mind map of each interviewee to make a consensus map to show the principle of “Three Most”—most of the time, most of the people, and the most common ideas. |
Constructs and scale used in the study.
| Latent Variable | Observed Variable | Item Text | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| ATEB | ATEB1 | I think it is wise to protect the scenic environment. | [ |
| ATEB2 | I think it is necessary to protect the scenic environment. | ||
| ATEB3 | I think it is valuable to protect the scenic environment. | ||
| SN | SN1 | People who are important to me think that I should protect the scenic environment. | [ |
| SN2 | People I care about will blame me for not protecting the scenic environment. | ||
| SN3 | The people I care about are protecting the scenic environment. | ||
| PBC | PBC1 | I think I have enough ability to protect the scenic environment. | [ |
| PBC2 | I think I have enough ability to protect the scenic environment. | ||
| PBC3 | Protecting the scenic environment is a happy thing. | ||
| REBI | REBI1 | I want to protect the scenic landscape from being destroyed. | [ |
| REBI2 | I want to properly dispose of the garbage generated during travel. | ||
| REBI3 | I do not want to buy products that affect the ecology of the scenic area. | ||
| REB | REB1 | I will protect the landscape of the scenic area from being damaged. | [ |
| REB2 | I will properly dispose of the garbage generated during travel. | ||
| REB3 | I will not buy products that damage the ecology of the scenic area. | ||
| EE | EE1 | Water culture education in the scenic area allows me to consciously regulate my REB. | |
| EE2 | The beautiful outdoor environment allows me to consciously regulate my REB. | ||
| EE3 | Renewable energy education in the scenic area allows me to consciously regulate my REB. |
ATEB: attitudes toward environmental behaviors; SN: subjective norms; PBC: perceptual behavior control; REBI: responsible environmental behavioral intentions; REB: responsible environmental behaviors; EE: situational environmental education.
Hierarchical value map (HVM) developed in our study.
| HVM | No. | Constructs | Number of Mentions |
|---|---|---|---|
| Specific Attributes | 1 | Water Culture Square | 15 |
| 2 | North Open Sedimentation Tank | 15 | |
| 3 | Ecological Gardens | 15 | |
| 4 | Sponge City Plaza | 14 | |
| 5 | Activity Park | 13 | |
| 6 | Forest Corridor | 13 | |
| 7 | Rain Garden | 13 | |
| 8 | Stream | 12 | |
| 9 | Forest Sculpture | 12 | |
| 10 | Art Plaza | 11 | |
| 11 | Water Park | 11 | |
| 12 | Forest Road | 11 | |
| 13 | South Open Sedimentation Tank | 10 | |
| 14 | Water Plant Site | 10 | |
| 15 | Tree House | 9 | |
| 16 | Tower Site | 9 | |
| 17 | Blue Sky | 9 | |
| 18 | Ancient Tree Square | 8 | |
| 19 | Platform | 7 | |
| 20 | Negative Oxygen Ions | 7 | |
| Abstract Attributes | 1 | Experiential Education | 15 |
| 2 | Cultural Study | 15 | |
| 3 | Outdoor Education | 15 | |
| 4 | Garden-Based Learning | 15 | |
| 5 | Education for Sustainable Development | 14 | |
| 6 | Beautiful Environment | 15 | |
| 7 | History | 12 | |
| 8 | Humanities | 9 | |
| 9 | Spiritual Needs | 7 | |
| 10 | Phytocoenosium | 5 | |
| Psychological Consequences | 1 | Environmental Protection | 14 |
| 2 | Responsibility | 14 | |
| 3 | Pity | 12 | |
| 4 | Happy | 12 | |
| 5 | Quiet | 11 | |
| 6 | Duty | 10 | |
| 7 | Pressure | 8 | |
| 8 | Remorse | 6 | |
| Value | 1 | Attitudes Toward Environmental Behaviors | 15 |
| 2 | Responsible Environmental Behavioral Intentions | 15 | |
| 3 | Perceptual Behavior Control | 14 | |
| 4 | Environmental Education | 14 | |
| 5 | Subjective Norm | 13 |
Figure 4Consensus map developed using data from the 15 interviewees.
Demographic data of the visitors of Changchun Water Culture Ecological Park interviewed for our study.
| Characteristics | Category | Quantity | Percent (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | Male | 275 | 52.18 |
| Female | 252 | 47.82 | |
| Age | ≤10 | 4 | 0.76 |
| 11–20 | 12 | 2.28 | |
| 21–30 | 225 | 42.69 | |
| 31–40 | 122 | 23.15 | |
| 41–50 | 96 | 18.22 | |
| 51–60 | 62 | 11.76 | |
| ≥60 | 6 | 1.14 | |
| Education | Elementary school and below | 10 | 1.9 |
| High school | 186 | 35.29 | |
| College | 265 | 50.28 | |
| Master’s degree and above | 66 | 12.52 | |
| Occupation | Public official | 39 | 7.4 |
| Business personnel | 28 | 5.31 | |
| Mechanics/workers | 104 | 19.73 | |
| Waiters/salespersons | 18 | 3.42 | |
| Company staff | 156 | 29.6 | |
| Student | 81 | 15.37 | |
| Retired people | 41 | 7.78 | |
| Others | 60 | 11.39 | |
| Place of residence | In Changchun | 337 | 63.95 |
| Outside Changchun | 190 | 36.05 | |
| Frequency of visiting the Changchun Water Culture Ecological Park | One time | 399 | 75.71 |
| Two times | 76 | 14.42 | |
| Three times or above | 52 | 9.87 |
Reliability and convergent validity test results.
| Variable | Mean | SD | Standardized Factor Loading | R2 | CR | AVE | Cronbach’s Alpha |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ATEB | 0.667 | 0.946 | 0.854 | 0.914 | |||
| ATEB1 | 4.58 | 0.388 | 0.935 | ||||
| ATEB2 | 4.54 | 0.463 | 0.921 | ||||
| ATEB3 | 4.58 | 0.443 | 0.917 | ||||
| SN | 0.508 | 0.841 | 0.638 | 0.747 | |||
| SN1 | 4.20 | 0.720 | 0.827 | ||||
| SN2 | 3.67 | 1.030 | 0.823 | ||||
| SN3 | 4.14 | 0.752 | 0.744 | ||||
| PBC | 0.554 | 0.819 | 0.603 | 0.739 | |||
| PBC1 | 3.88 | 0.904 | 0.843 | ||||
| PBC2 | 3.40 | 1.199 | 0.786 | ||||
| PBC3 | 4.29 | 0.598 | 0.693 | ||||
| REBI | 0.686 | 0.898 | 0.746 | 0.829 | |||
| REBI1 | 4.29 | 0.580 | 0.882 | ||||
| REBI2 | 4.36 | 0.538 | 0.877 | ||||
| REBI3 | 4.25 | 0.663 | 0.831 | ||||
| REB | 0.611 | 0.906 | 0.762 | 0.843 | |||
| REB1 | 4.30 | 0.567 | 0.877 | ||||
| REB2 | 4.34 | 0.609 | 0.872 | ||||
| REB3 | 4.25 | 0.658 | 0.870 | ||||
| EE | 0.766 | 0.909 | 0.770 | 0.850 | |||
| EE1 | 4.32 | 0.602 | 0.897 | ||||
| EE2 | 4.31 | 0.538 | 0.882 | ||||
| EE3 | 4.30 | 0.751 | 0.853 |
Analysis results of normality test.
| Kurtosis | Skewness | χ2 | P | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ATEB | −0.039 | −0.507 | 1.334 | 0.452 |
| SN | 0.491 | −0.606 | 5.586 | 0.061 |
| PBC | 0.040 | −0.473 | 1.107 | 0.575 |
| REBI | −0.510 | 0.032 | 4.217 | 0.121 |
| REB | −0.256 | −0.624 | 2.930 | 0.242 |
| EE | 0.138 | −0.772 | 4.217 | 0.231 |
Discriminant validity test applied in our study.
| Latent Variable | ATEB | SN | PBC | REBI | REB | EE |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ATEB | 0.924 | |||||
| SN | 0.480 ** | 0.917 | ||||
| PBC | 0.429 ** | 0.553 ** | 0.905 | |||
| REBI | 0.660 ** | 0.530 ** | 0.514 ** | 0.948 | ||
| REB | 0.656 ** | 0.541 ** | 0.525 ** | 0.804 ** | 0.952 | |
| EE | 0.599 ** | 0.535 ** | 0.497 ** | 0.733 ** | 0.776 ** | 0.953 |
Note: The diagonal includes the square root of the AVE; the correlations between the latent variables appear underneath the diagonal. ** p < 0.01. Attitudes toward environmental behaviors (ATEB), responsible environmental behaviors (REB), responsible environmental behavioral intentions (REBI), situational environmental education (EE), perceptual behavior control (PBC), subjective norm (SN).
Path analysis of the structural model.
| Path | Standard Error | Standardized Path Coefficient | Hypothesis |
|---|---|---|---|
| ATEB→REBI | 0.032 | 0.660 | Verified |
| SN→REBI | 0.042 | 0.530 | Verified |
| PBC→REBI | 0.045 | 0.514 | Verified |
| PBC→REB | 0.043 | 0.535 | Verified |
| REBI→REB | 0.025 | 0.804 | Verified |
| EE→REBI | 0.029 | 0.733 | Verified |
| EE→REB | 0.026 | 0.776 | Verified |
Attitudes toward environmental behaviors (ATEB); responsible environmental behaviors (REB), responsible environmental behavioral intentions (REBI), situational environmental education (EE), perceptual behavior control (PBC), and subjective norm (SN).
Figure 5Results of the structural equation model. Attitudes toward environmental behaviors (ATEB), responsible environmental behaviors (REB), responsible environmental behavioral intentions (REBI), situational environmental education (EE), perceptual behavior control (PBC), and subjective norm (SN).
Situational environmental education moderator variable analysis results.
| Regression Analysis | R | R2 | F | Significance | B | Standard Error | Beta |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EE→REBI | 0.733 | 0.537 | 608.232 | 0.000 | 0.713 | 0.029 | 0.733 |
| EE→REB | 0.776 | 0.602 | 792.515 | 0.000 | 0.731 | 0.026 | 0.776 |