EN中文

Journal of Resources and Ecology >

2022 , Vol. 13 >Issue 5: 936 - 945

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5814/j.issn.1674-764x.2022.05.017

Assessing Impact of Restoration on Livelihood

The Characteristic Differences between Ecological Culture and Low-carbon Tourism Cognition under the Vision of Carbon Neutrality

  • CHENG Jinhong ,
  • LI Shuxiao ,
  • WANG Zheng ,
  • CHENG Zhanhong , *
Expand
  • College of Cultural Tourism, Shanxi University of Finance and Economics, Taiyuan 030031, China
*CHENG Zhanhong, E-mail:

CHENG Jinhong, E-mail:

Received date: 2021-04-27

  Accepted date: 2022-01-24

  Online published: 2022-07-15

Supported by

The Special Research Project on Science and Technology Strategy of Shanxi Province(202104031402065)

The Special Research Project on Science and Technology Strategy of Shanxi Province(202104031402061)

Fold

Abstract

Ecological culture has a low-carbon attribute, which coincides with the concepts of energy conservation and emission reduction in low-carbon tourism. Analyzing the differences in the public perception of the two is of great significance for achieving the carbon neutral goal of tourism. Firstly, the views of nature, equality and ecology in ecological culture, as well as the cognition and participation willingness for low-carbon tourism were identified by using the principal component analysis method. Secondly, all samples were divided into four types of ecological culture cognition: sufficient, relatively sufficient, general and poorer, by the K-means clustering method. Thirdly, significant differences in the low-carbon tourism cognition among different types were revealed by using the ANOVA method. Finally, the influences of the main demographic characteristics on the low-carbon tourism cognition were analyzed. This analysis showed that gender, age, education level and income level had significant differences in some aspects of low-carbon tourism cognition and participation willingness, especially education level. On this basis, several corresponding strategies were put forward for managing the cognitive differences of the different types, which could contribute to the realization of the carbon neutral vision of tourism.

Key words： carbon neutrality; ecological culture; low-carbon tourism; demographic characteristics

Cite this article

CHENG Jinhong , LI Shuxiao , WANG Zheng , CHENG Zhanhong . The Characteristic Differences between Ecological Culture and Low-carbon Tourism Cognition under the Vision of Carbon Neutrality[J]. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 2022 , 13(5) : 936 -945 . DOI: 10.5814/j.issn.1674-764x.2022.05.017

1 Introduction

The well-being of human life is closely related to the global climate environment. At the climate summit in April 2021, the Secretary General of the United Nations pointed out that the previous 10 years were the hottest on record, while the global temperature had risen by 1.2 ℃ and was approaching the threshold of climate disaster. These points show that global climate governance is imminent, carbon neutrality has become a global consensus, and the task of carbon reduction is urgent (Mallapaty, 2020). Harmonious coexistence between man and nature is the essence of the sustainable development of the whole society. The long-term goal of carbon neutrality can be achieved by comprehensively improving energy efficiency, promoting low-carbon transfor-mation in various fields, giving priority to energy conservation, developing green low-carbon transportation, using carbon capture utilization and storage technology, and improving the carbon sink capacity of the ecosystem. As one of the pillar industries of the national economy, the carbon emissions of tourism should not be underestimated, so it is particularly important to realize the low-carbon transformation of tourism.
The essence of carbon neutrality is to offset the carbon dioxide emissions in the production process through various measures, so as to achieve zero net carbon emissions (Newton and Rogers, 2020; Deng et al., 2021). At present, the research on carbon neutrality is more based on the perspective of the whole society and the whole industry, including related concepts, development status and trends, implementation paths and policy systems (Pereda et al., 2019; Yangka et al., 2019; Odell et al., 2020; Tang et al., 2021). Carbon neutral research in different industries mainly focuses on agriculture, forestry and industry (Huang et al., 2020; Nieuwenhuijsen, 2020; Birkenberg et al., 2021), while the research on carbon neutrality in tourism is relatively rare. Among the only relevant research, scholars have found the path to achieving carbon neutrality mainly by measuring the tourism carbon footprint based on the case studies of the tourist destinations (Jin et al., 2018; Ren et al., 2019; Antequera et al., 2021; Han et al., 2021; Sun and Higham, 2021), but there are few reports on exploring the path to achieve carbon neutrality from the cognitive perspective.
Low-carbon cognition is the foundation of low-carbon behavior, and good low-carbon tourism cognition is helpful for the realization of low-carbon tourism. The factors that affect low-carbon tourism cognition include internal factors (such as demographic characteristics, self-attitudes and values), and external factors (such as a low-carbon environment, relevant policy norms, etc.), of which demographic characteristics are the most basic influencing factors (Wu et al., 2017; Seetaram et al., 2018; Wang et al., 2019; Gao et al., 2021). In the existing research, one part has examined the level, characteristics and influencing factors of tourists’ low-carbon tourism cognition from the internal and external perspectives (Zhao et al., 2015; Cheng et al., 2019; Sun, 2019; Zhang and Zhang, 2019; Pan et al., 2021), while the other part had examined the role of demographic characteristics on low-carbon tourism cognition, including gender, age, occupation, income, education level and other perspectives (Lu et al., 2016; Bogicevic et al., 2018; Atzori et al., 2019; Rasoolimanesh et al., 2020). However, cultural factors have been ignored in these studies.
Ecological culture is a kind of culture that coordinates the harmonious coexistence between humans and nature, society and nature. The concepts of nature, equality and ecology contained in ecological culture coincide with the behavioral mode advocated by low-carbon tourism. Foreign scholars began to study ecological culture earlier, mainly inclined toward western ecological ethics, which emphasized the respect for life and nature, coordinated the relationship between man and nature and between man and biological community, advocated environmental education activities, and guided the public to establish correct ecological values (Whiteside, 1998; Caputi, 2020). However, domestic research began relatively late, focused on the combination of theory and practice, formulated the code of conduct for the protection of nature and environment, and strived to make human beings change from “ruling nature” in the past to “living in harmony with nature” (Li, 2020; Liu, 2021; Ma et al., 2021). The concept of nature is the basic position for dealing with the relationship between humans and the natural environment, which is reflected in the beautiful pursuit of the harmonious coexistence of humans and nature (Fang et al., 2020). The idea of ecological equality is the embodiment of respecting, adapting and protecting nature. The concepts of “harmony between humans and nature” and “resource saving” will encourage human beings to realize that global warming is closely related to everyone, and thus to establish a global low-carbon awareness and practice a green and low-carbon consumption mode (Lin, 2020). However, the current cognitive research on ecological culture mostly started from the perspectives of different groups such as urban residents, villagers and college students (Wang et al., 2020), and has not integrated ecological culture and cognition from different industry perspectives. Therefore, it is helpful to find the path for realizing low-carbon tourism in tourism destinations with ecological culture as the background by analyzing the cognitive differences between ecological culture and low-carbon tourism, which is conducive to the transformation of ecological culture into low-carbon tourism cognition, and provides a new theoretical perspective for the realization of low-carbon tourism and carbon neutrality.

2 Research methods

2.1 Research design and investigation

The data for this study were collected through a questionnaire survey, which included three parts: the first on the concept indexes of ecological culture, the second on the specific indexes of low-carbon tourism, and the third on the individual characteristics of demographic variables. Ecological culture involves concepts such as nature, equality and ecology (Butler, 1991; Mcdonald et al., 2019; Jeong et al., 2020). The concept of nature emphasizes the dialectical unity of humans and the natural environment, and advocates respecting and protecting nature. Six indexes were designed for the relationship between humanity and nature, global climate change, the sustainability of environment, and how humans treat nature correctly. The concept of equality emphasizes the equality of all beings and the protection of animals and plants. Five indexes were designed for the equality of humans and animals and plants, and the equality of the tourists and residents of tourist destinations. The ecological concept pursues the harmonious coexistence of humans and nature, and affirms the importance of protecting the ecological environment. Six indexes were designed for the aspects of saving resources, protecting the biological environment and implementing carbon sequestration. Low-carbon tourism involves the two aspects of low-carbon cognition and participation willingness (Zhang et al., 2017; Han, 2018; Setyowati et al., 2019; Du et al., 2020; Gao et al., 2020). Low-carbon cognition refers to the public’s cognition of the attributes of low-carbon tourism, such as energy conservation and emission reduction. Four indexes were designed for the importance, basic mode and core concepts of low-carbon tourism. The participation willingness for low-carbon behavior refers to the willingness of the public to actively participate in low-carbon tourism activities. Six indexes were designed for the aspects of accommodation, travel, diet, carbon compensation and recommendation willingness (Liu et al., 2017; Munanura et al., 2020; Coskun and Norman, 2021). The individual characteristics were related to gender, age, education level and income level. In addition, the cognition of ecological culture is the premise and foundation of low-carbon tourism. They all emphasize the respect for nature, the protection of nature, and the realization of the harmony and unity between humans and the environment. The higher the cognition of ecological culture, the stronger the public’s awareness of low-carbon environmental protection, and the easier it is to engage in low-carbon tourism behavior, so as to achieve the carbon emission reduction target of tourism.
In this study, 850 questionnaires were issued through the platform of Questionnaire Star in August 2020, 765 of which were valid, for an effective rate of 90%. The questionnaire measured the public’s cognition of ecological culture and low-carbon tourism through the Likert-5 scale method (1=strongly disagree, 2=disagree, 3=not necessarily, 4=agree, 5=strongly agree).

2.2 Analysis methods

Firstly, the exploratory factor analysis was conducted on the scale of ecological culture and low-carbon tourism by using the SPSS 24.0 software. Secondly, the data matrix was formed based on all index values of the public cognition of ecological culture, which was divided into different cognition types of ecological culture by the K-means clustering method. Thirdly, the differences in cognition of different types toward ecological culture were studied, and the influences of demographic characteristics on low-carbon tourism cognition were mainly analyzed by the ANOVA method.

3 Analysis and results

3.1 Reliability and validity analysis

The Cronbach’s α coefficients of the questionnaires for ecological culture and low-carbon tourism were 0.91 and 0.88, respectively, which indicated that the internal consistency of data for each index was good. The Cronbach’s α coefficients of each dimension of the questionnaire were between 0.80-0.92 and 0.85-0.86, respectively, and there was no significant change, which indicated that the reliability of the data was ideal.
The KMO values of ecological culture and low-carbon tourism were 0.92 and 0.88, respectively, and the significance of the Bartlett’s test was 0.00, indicating that it was suitable for factor analysis. According to the principle that the characteristic value is greater than 1 and the factor load value is less than 0.50, index number 17 stating that “human beings should reduce their greed and demand for nature” was deleted. Finally, three principal components were extracted from ecological culture (view of nature, view of equality and view of ecology) and two principal components were extracted from low-carbon tourism (the low-carbon tourism cognition and the participation willingness for low-carbon tourism). Meanwhile, the cumulative total variance interpretation rates of the two questionnaires were 64.42% and 65.14%, respectively, which indicated good data validity.

3.2 Analysis of the K-means clustering method

All the samples were divided into four groups by K-means clustering method. There were 149 samples (19.50%) in Group Ⅰ, 229 samples (29.90%) in Group Ⅱ, 270 samples (35.30%) in Group Ⅲ and 117 samples (15.30%) in Group Ⅳ.
The data in Table 1 show that in Group Ⅰ, the females were dominant (accounting for 59.70%), the age was mainly 21-30 years old (accounting for 43.60%), the education level was mainly at a high degree (undergraduate and postgraduate accounting for 68.50%), and the monthly income level was mainly 2000-5000 yuan (accounting for 42.30%). The data in Table 2 show that the cognition level of each index of ecological culture in Group Ⅰ was between agree and strongly agree, indicating that they recognized the relevant concepts of ecological culture and belonged to the type of full cognition.
Table 1 The basic attributes of the different types of ecological culture cognition
Individual attributes Category Group Ⅰ Group Ⅱ Group Ⅲ Group Ⅳ
Number of samples Proportion (%) Number of samples Proportion (%) Number of samples Proportion (%) Number of samples Proportion (%)
Gender Male 60 40.30 102 44.50 113 41.90 60 51.30
Female 89 59.70 127 55.50 157 58.10 57 48.70
Age (yr) < 20 17 11.40 27 11.80 36 13.30 29 24.80
21-30 65 43.60 78 34.10 108 40.00 44 37.60
31-40 29 19.50 69 30.10 67 24.80 26 22.20
41-50 25 16.80 35 15.30 34 12.60 9 7.70
> 51 13 8.80 20 8.70 25 9.30 9 2.30
Education level Primary school 6 4.00 4 1.70 14 5.20 4 3.40
Junior high school 19 12.80 27 11.80 27 10.00 15 12.80
Junior college 22 14.80 22 9.60 41 15.20 18 15.40
Undergraduate 60 40.30 96 41.90 105 38.90 41 35.00
Postgraduate 42 28.20 80 34.90 83 30.70 39 33.30
Monthly income level (yuan) < 2000 48 32.20 60 26.20 95 35.20 43 36.80
2000-5000 63 42.30 98 42.80 83 30.70 40 34.20
5000-10000 28 18.80 48 21.00 67 24.80 22 18.80
> 10000 10 6.70 23 10.00 25 9.30 12 10.30
Group Ⅱ was still dominated by females (accounting for 55.50%), and the group aged 21-30 years old was the most numerous (accounting for 34.10%), the education level was still at a high degree (undergraduate and postgraduate accounting for 76.80%), and the income level was still 2000-5000 yuan (accounting for 42.80%). In the cognition aspect of ecological culture, the cognition values of the view of equality (including indexes 6-9) and index 16 were less than 4.00, and the cognition values of the other indexes were greater than 4.00, which indicated that the group’s dominant view of equality cognition and the carbon sink concept were between negative and uncertain, while they agreed with the other concepts of ecological culture. On the whole, this group’s ecological culture cognition belonged to a relatively sufficient cognitive type.
Group Ⅲ was still dominated by females (accounting for 58.10%), mainly 21-30 years old (accounting for 40%), highly educated (undergraduate and postgraduate accounting for 69.60%), and had an income level of less than 2000 yuan (accounting for 35.20%). On the cognition of ecological culture, the average cognition values of Group Ⅲ on the view of nature (including indexes 1-5) and index 11 were greater than 4.00, which indicated that the group agreed with the views of nature, resource conservation and moderate consumption. The average cognition values of other indexes were between 3.50-4.00, which indicated that the group’s cognition of equality and most ecology concepts were between uncertainty and agreement. Therefore, this group belonged to the general type for the cognition of eco-logical culture.
Group Ⅳ was dominated by males (accounting for 51.30%), mainly 21-30 years old (accounting for 37.60%), with a higher education level (undergraduate and postgraduate accounting for 68.30%) and an income level of less than 2000 yuan (accounting for 36.80%). The data in Table 2 indicate that Group Ⅳ showed an attitude of agreement on the view of nature (except indexes 4-5). However, their cognition values of the views of equality and ecology were between disagreement and uncertainty, which indicated that their cognition of ecological culture was poor.
Table 2 The cognition differences of the different types toward ecological culture
View of ecological culture Index Group Ⅰ Group Ⅱ Group Ⅲ Group Ⅳ
View of
nature		 1. Mitigation of climate change requires the participation of all mankind 4.82 4.90 4.13 4.09
2. Global climate change is closely related to all people 4.74 4.83 4.11 4.11
3. We should jointly safeguard the sustainable development of nature 4.82 4.87 4.10 4.07
4. Only by living a low-carbon life can human beings have a bright future 4.74 4.60 4.01 3.91
5. Humanity and nature are interdependent and inseparable 4.83 4.67 4.11 3.96
View of equality 6. Advocate caring for all life including animals and plants 4.80 3.63 3.78 3.38
7. The view of equality urges me to make carbon compensation for tourism activities 4.53 2.87 3.57 3.06
8. The idea of giving charity urges me to give priority to local products 4.56 2.88 3.60 2.85
9. The view of equality is beneficial to the sustainable development of tourism destinations 4.77 3.57 3.73 3.03
10. The view of equality advocates respect for the customs and habits of residents in tourist destinations 4.78 4.17 3.93 3.32
View of
ecology		 11. The view of ecology advocates moderate consumption and resource conservation 4.89 4.32 4.00 3.03
12. The view of ecology is conducive to ecosystem balance and climate change mitigation 4.83 4.13 3.93 2.84
13. The view of ecology advocates respecting nature and cherishing biology and the environment 4.89 4.31 3.96 3.20
14. The goal of pure land on earth is the ideal portrayal of the unity of man and nature 4.89 4.24 3.91 2.89
15. The view of ecology is in accord with the concept of low-carbon and environmental protection 4.82 4.08 3.86 2.85
16. The view of ecology contributes to carbon absorption of the natural ecosystem 4.85 3.81 3.86 2.66

Note: The questionnaire measured the public’s cognition of ecological culture and low-carbon tourism through the Likert-5 scale method (1= strongly disagree, 2= disagree, 3= not necessarily, 4= agree, 5= strongly agree). The same below.

In general, the public’s cognition of the view of nature showed the rule of Group Ⅰ > Group Ⅱ > Group Ⅲ > Group Ⅳ, in which Group Ⅰ, Group Ⅱ and Group Ⅲ all agreed, while Group Ⅳ agreed with the rest of the indexes except for the uncertainty of indexes 4 and 5. This result showed that the four groups had a high degree of recognition of the view of nature. The order of public cognition of the view of equality was Group Ⅰ > Group Ⅲ > Group Ⅱ > Group Ⅳ, in which Group Ⅰ was positive, Group Ⅲ was uncertain, Group Ⅱ agreed with index 10, while the cognition values of other indexes were between negative and uncertain, and the cognition values of all indicators were between negative and uncertain in Group Ⅳ.
The public’s cognition of the view of ecology followed the rule of Group Ⅰ > Group Ⅱ > Group Ⅲ > Group Ⅳ. Group Ⅰ tended to agree very strongly. Group Ⅱ agreed with all the indicators, except for the uncertainty in index 16. Group Ⅲ only agreed with the degree of intention in index 11, while all the others were uncertain. Group Ⅳ was between negative and uncertainty. Therefore, in terms of ecological culture cognition, Group Ⅰ belonged to the cognitive sufficient type, Group Ⅱ belonged to the more sufficient type, Group Ⅲ belonged to the general type, and Group Ⅳ belonged to the cognitive poor type.

3.3 Analysis of variance of different groups for low-carbon tourism

The cognitive differences of different groups for low-carbon tourism were tested by the ANOVA method. As can be seen from Table 3, there were significant differences in the 10 indicators of low-carbon tourism cognition among the four groups, indicating that there were significant differences in low-carbon tourism cognition and participation willingness among the four groups.
Table 3 The variance analysis of different types toward low-carbon tourism
Index Group Quadratic sum Degrees of freedom Mean square F statistic Sig.
1. Low-carbon tourism is the only way for tourism to slow down climate change Between groups 82.38 3 27.46 58.31 0.00
Within groups 358.38 761 0.47
Total 440.75 764
2. Low-carbon tourism is a kind of green sustainable tourism development mode Between groups 120.45 3 40.15 83.03 0.00
Within groups 367.98 761 0.48
Total 488.42 764
3. The basic mode of low-carbon tourism is low energy consumption, low pollution and low emission Between groups 150.86 3 50.29 104.99 0.00
Within groups 364.47 761 0.48
Total 515.33 764
4. The core of low-carbon tourism is energy conservation and emission reduction Between groups 127.65 3 42.55 72.87 0.00
Within groups 444.35 761 0.58
Total 572.00 764
5. I am willing to take part in low-carbon tourism activities Between groups 90.59 3 30.20 75.17 0.00
Within groups 305.72 761 0.40
Total 396.31 764
6. In terms of low-carbon accommodation, I am willing to choose an economy hotel or homestay Between groups 92.60 3 30.87 64.91 0.00
Within groups 361.86 761 0.48
Total 454.47 764
7. In terms of low-carbon travel, I am willing to choose low-carbon transportation modes such as trains or buses Between groups 78.16 3 26.05 48.53 0.00
Within groups 408.54 761 0.54
Total 486.70 764
8. In terms of a low-carbon diet, I am willing to abandon meat and choose vegetarianism Between groups 120.67 3 40.22 39.12 0.00
Within groups 782.52 761 1.03
Total 903.20 764
9. In terms of carbon compensation, I am willing to pay extra for the carbon emissions from my own activities Between groups 116.20 3 38.73 49.65 0.00
Within groups 593.68 761 0.78
Total 709.88 764
10. I would like to recommend the above low-carbon tourism to my family and friends Between groups 123.80 3 41.27 86.04 0.00
Within groups 365.01 761 0.48
Total 488.80 764
Table 4 The cognition differences of different types toward low-carbon tourism
Index Group Ⅰ Group Ⅱ Group Ⅲ Group Ⅳ
Index 1 4.57 4.21 3.92 3.53
Index 2 4.64 4.30 3.97 3.36
Index 3 4.74 4.24 3.89 3.30
Index 4 4.66 4.07 3.89 3.29
Index 5 4.69 4.46 4.09 3.63
Index 6 4.63 4.39 4.02 3.56
Index 7 4.59 4.27 4.00 3.56
Index 8 4.24 3.37 3.71 2.99
Index 9 4.40 3.56 3.73 3.12
Index 10 4.62 4.18 3.97 3.28

Note: Indexes 1-10 are the same as listed in Table 3.

In order to clarify the cognitive differences of the different groups regarding low-carbon tourism, combining the data in Tables 3 and 4, it can be seen that the cognition values of Group Ⅰ for all indexes were between agree and strongly agree, indicating that their low-carbon cognition was high.
The cognition values of Group Ⅱ for indexes 8 and 9 were between uncertainty and agreement, while the other indexes were all agree, indicating that the group had insufficient cognition for low-carbon diet and carbon compensation.
Group Ⅲ agreed with indexes 5, 6 and 7, but was uncertain about the other indexes, indicating that this group needs to improve their low-carbon tourism cognition, low-carbon diet, carbon compensation and recommendation intention.
Group Ⅳ held an attitude of disagreement and uncertainty toward all indexes, indicating that this group had the lowest low-carbon cognition.

3.4 The difference analysis of demographic characteristics for low-carbon tourism

3.4.1 Gender attribute

The data in Table 5 show that there were significant differences in index 9 among individuals of different genders in Group Ⅰ, in which the cognition of the female group was the lower (4.27), indicating that the participation willingness for carbon compensation needs to be improved.
Table 5 The difference analysis of demographic characteristics for low-carbon tourism
Individual attributes Group Index 1 Index 2 Index 3 Index 4 Index 5 Index 6 Index 7 Index 8 Index 9 Index 10
Gender Group Ⅰ 0.11 0.10 0.48 0.42 0.30 0.13 0.43 0.08 0.04* 0.27
Group Ⅱ 0.13 0.76 0.47 0.40 0.62 0.07 0.46 0.46 0.57 0.80
Group Ⅲ 0.86 0.99 0.43 0.93 0.64 0.75 0.62 0.34 0.29 0.64
Group Ⅳ 0.86 0.47 0.29 0.93 0.32 0.80 0.82 0.18 0.56 0.56
Age Group Ⅰ 0.03* 0.15 0.01* 0.24 0.06 0.10 0.18 0.60 0.39 0.24
Group Ⅱ 0.17 0.55 0.14 0.04* 0.39 0.45 0.11 0.07 0.31 0.43
Group Ⅲ 0.94 0.34 0.12 0.46 0.63 0.44 0.73 0.07 0.09 0.26
Group Ⅳ 0.65 0.26 0.34 0.79 0.21 0.33 0.23 0.29 0.09 0.61
Education level Group Ⅰ 0.20 0.01* 0.04* 0.05 0.70 0.28 0.16 0.22 0.99 0.45
Group Ⅱ 0.09 0.03* 0.13 0.04* 0.62 0.41 0.25 0.21 0.69 0.18
Group Ⅲ 0.49 0.87 0.30 0.59 0.71 0.95 0.04* 0.04* 0.13 0.08
Group Ⅳ 0.66 0.92 0.44 0.34 0.33 0.64 0.63 0.17 0.22 0.82
Income level Group Ⅰ 0.55 0.08 0.50 0.18 0.20 0.29 0.40 0.24 0.01* 0.69
Group Ⅱ 0.45 0.25 0.74 0.85 0.33 0.49 0.16 0.88 0.51 0.82
Group Ⅲ 0.30 0.88 0.24 0.10 0.85 0.53 0.91 0.82 0.45 0.81
Group Ⅳ 0.90 0.44 0.88 0.76 0.91 0.44 0.52 0.26 0.05 0.69

Note: * means significant at the 5% level. Indexes 1-10 are the same as listed in Table 3.

In addition, the gender attribute had no significant differences in the cognition of any of the indexes in Group Ⅱ, Group Ⅲ or Group Ⅳ.

3.4.2 Age attribute

The data in Table 5 show that there were significant differences in indexes 1 and 3 among individuals of different ages in Group Ⅰ, in which the group cognition for individuals over 51 years old had the lowest cognition, with the averages of 4.03 and 4.37, respectively, indicating that the importance and basic mode of low-carbon tourism cognition of this group needs to be improved.
There were significant differences in index 4 among individuals of different ages in Group Ⅱ. The cognition for over 51 years old group was the lowest (3.85), followed by the group aged 21-30 (3.88), which indicated their cognition of energy conservation and emission reduction of low-carbon tourism needs to be improved.
In general, in terms of the age attribute, the over 51 years old group had insufficient low-carbon tourism cognition.

3.4.3 Education level attribute

The data in Tables 5 and 6 show that there were significant differences in indexes 2 and 3 among individuals with different educational levels in Group Ⅰ, in which the cognition of the primary school group was the lowest, with averages of 3.83 and 4.01, respectively, indicating that the sustainability and basic mode cognition of low-carbon tourism of this group were insufficient.
Table 6 The mean values of different education levels for the significant indexes of low-carbon tourism
Education level Group Ⅰ Group Ⅱ Group Ⅲ
Index 2 Index 3 Index 2 Index 4 Index 7 Index 8
Primary school 3.83 4.01 4.25 3.75 4.07 4.00
Junior high school 4.42 4.37 3.93 3.81 4.19 4.00
Junior college 4.73 4.68 4.41 4.59 4.10 3.88
Undergraduate 4.63 4.75 4.43 4.04 4.03 3.62
Postgraduate 4.81 4.88 4.24 4.05 3.83 3.61

Note: The indexes of 2, 3, 4, 7 and 8 are the same as listed in Table 3.

There were significant differences in indexes 2 and 4 among individuals with different education levels in Group Ⅱ. The cognition of the junior high school group was the lowest (3.93) in index 2, indicating that they had insufficient cognition of low-carbon sustainability. The primary school group had the lowest cognition (3.75) for index 4, followed by the junior high school group (3.81), which indicated their cognition of energy conservation and emission reduction were obviously insufficient.
There were significant differences in indexes 7 and 8 among individuals with different education levels in Group Ⅲ. The postgraduate group had the lowest cognitive average (3.83) for index 7, indicating that this group had a low participation willingness for low-carbon travel. The mean cognitive values of college degree and above groups were less than 4.00 for index 8, indicating that this group was between uncertainty and agreement on the low-carbon diet.
In general, in terms of the education level attribute, the low-carbon tourism cognition of the low-educated group was obviously insufficient, and the participation willingness for low-carbon tourism behavior of the high-educated group needs to be improved.

3.4.4 Income level attribute

The data in Table 5 show there were significant differences in index 9 among individuals with different income levels in Group Ⅰ. The high-income group of more than 10000 yuan had the lowest mean value (3.50), indicating that the participation willingness for carbon compensation of the high-income group needs to be improved.
In addition, there were no significant differences in the cognition values of any of the indexes of Group Ⅱ, Group Ⅲ or Group Ⅳ for the income level attribute.

4 Discussion

(1) The goal of carbon neutrality has become a global consensus, and carbon emission reduction is the inescapable responsibility of tourism. Previous scholars mainly studied the carbon footprint, carbon emission estimation and influencing factors, and the carbon emission reduction countermeasures of tourism (Yangka et al., 2019; Antequera et al., 2021; Sun and Higham, 2021). Such studies found that the growth rate of the carbon footprint was much higher than the carrying capacity of the tourist destinations, indicating that the ecological crisis was becoming increasingly severe. The countermeasures of carbon emission reduction were proposed by measuring the carbon emission status of various industries such as tourism transportation and tourism accommodation (Sun and Higham, 2021), and include the construction of a green transportation system and other options. However, explorations of the path to achieve carbon neutrality from the cognitive perspective are relatively rare. From the perspective of low-carbon cognition, this paper analyzed the characteristics of the public’s cognition of low-carbon tourism in order to find the path for improving their low-carbon behavior, so as to achieve the goal of carbon neutral tourism.
(2) Previous studies on the relationship between ecological culture and tourism mostly focused on the spiritual implications of ecological culture, attractions of the ecological landscape, health tourism and ecological resource development (Lin, 2020; Wang et al., 2020), and they aimed to improve the level of economic development of tourist destinations, while ignoring the low-carbon implications of ecological culture. This paper focused on the relationship between ecological culture and low-carbon tourism, highlighting their low-carbon attributes, and transforming the public’s high-ecological culture cognition into high-carbon tourism cognition, so as to promote the realization of low-carbon tourism behavior. This paper constructed the indexes of ecological culture from the viewpoints of nature, equality and ecology, and constructed the indexes of low-carbon tourism from the perspectives of cognition and behavior intention. According to the cognitive differences of the public regarding ecological culture, the analysis divided them into different groups. Then, this paper analyzed the differences in the cognitive characteristics of different groups regarding low-carbon tourism, and put forward the corresponding improvement strategies to promote the realization of low-carbon behavior.
(3) In terms of the research on the factors influencing low-carbon tourism cognition, previous scholars mostly focused on the analysis of the factors that influence tourists’ low-carbon tourism cognition from the overall internal and external perspectives, including the influence of demographic characteristics (Rasoolimanesh et al., 2020). However, previous studies were not detailed enough, and did not highlight the role of cultural factors. In this paper, the cognitive differences of the public regarding ecological culture were analyzed, and the corresponding improvement strategies were put forward. Then, the cognitive differences of different ecological cultural groups for low-carbon tourism were further analyzed. Combined with the influences of demographic characteristics, strategies for improvement were put forward, which will be conducive to the realization of carbon neutrality in tourism.

5 Conclusions and suggestions

5.1 Conclusions

(1) The views of nature, equality and ecology of ecological culture, as well as the cognition and participation willingness for low-carbon tourism were identified by using the principal component analysis method.
(2) All samples were divided into four types of ecological culture cognition: sufficient, relatively sufficient, general and poorer by the K-means clustering method. Group Ⅰ strongly agreed with the concept of ecological culture, and belonged to the sufficient type of ecological culture cognition. Group Ⅱ agreed with all of the concepts except for a partial view of equality, and belonged to the relatively sufficient type of ecological culture cognition. Group Ⅲ agreed with the view of nature and conservation of resources, but was uncertain about the view of equality and most views of ecology, and belonged to the general type ecological culture cognition. Group Ⅳ only agreed with part of the view of nature, while the other views were between disagreement and uncertainty, and belonged to the poorer type ecological culture cognition.
(3) Significant differences were found in the low-carbon tourism cognition among different groups by using the ANOVA method. Group Ⅰ belonged to the sufficient low-carbon tourism cognition and had a positive low-carbon participation willingness. Group Ⅱ had a relatively sufficient low-carbon cognition and showed a certain participation willingness, but the low-carbon diet and carbon compensation were lower. The low-carbon cognition was low, and the participation willingness for a low-carbon diet, carbon compensation and low-carbon recommendation were also slightly insufficient in Group Ⅲ. The lowest low-carbon cognition and participation willingness were seen in Group Ⅳ, which is in urgent need of low-carbon education.
(4) The influences of the main demographic characteristics on the low-carbon tourism cognition were analyzed. The results showed that groups differentiated by gender, age, education level and income level had significant differences in some aspects of low-carbon tourism cognition and participation willingness, especially education level. The low- carbon tourism cognition of the elderly group and the low-educated group were insufficient, and the participation willingness for low-carbon behavior in the female group, high-educated group and high-income group need to be improved.

5.2 Suggestions

(1) From the relationship between the carbon neutral vision and low-carbon tourism cognition, low-carbon cognition is the premise of realizing the carbon neutral vision. Improving the public’s cognition of low-carbon tourism is conducive to the practice of low-carbon behavior, prompting tourists to offset the carbon dioxide generated by tourism activities through carbon reduction or carbon compensation, so as to achieve the carbon neutral goal of tourism (Le and Nguyen, 2020; Luo et al., 2020; Meng et al., 2020). For Group Ⅰ, we should continue to maintain their full cognition of low-carbon tourism and high participation willingness. Tourism destinations need to improve their low-carbon construction and service levels, and give tourists the basic conditions to realize low-carbon behaviors, such as bike sharing, bicycle tours, special homestay and green catering. For Groups Ⅱ and Ⅲ, the focus should be on fully enhancing their low-carbon practice willingness. Tourism destinations can encourage tourists to choose low-carbon consumption through certain incentives such as discounts and free orders, especially for low-carbon diet and carbon compensation. For Group Ⅳ, the low-carbon education and publicity should be carried out from all aspects. The formation of low-carbon tourism fashion needs the joint efforts of society, groups and individuals. Tourist destinations can popularize low-carbon tourism knowledge, increase natural education knowledge, convey the concept of environmental protection and improve tourists’ cognition of low-carbon tourism through audio broadcasts, posters and other forms of media.
(2) From the relationship between ecological culture and low-carbon tourism, the concepts of saving resources and protecting nature of ecological culture are consistent with the ideas of energy conservation and emission reduction of low-carbon tourism. It is significant for the development of low-carbon tourism to carry out research and study travel, enhance environmental education and improve the public cognition of ecological culture. Group Ⅰ should play the role of independent communication and guidance. Tourism destinations should deeply explore their own ecological resource characteristics, and integrate them into all aspects of the construction of the tourism destination to create a low-carbon atmosphere. It is necessary to explain the concept of low-carbon environmental protection and publicize the concept of equality between the tourists and residents of the tourist destination by means of guides, radio lectures or cultural propaganda films for Groups Ⅱ and Ⅲ, so as to guide these tourists in abandoning the traditional anthropocentrism and taking practical actions to care for the development of the tourism destination, such as developing low-carbon tourism products with local cultural characteristics, adding green restaurants and vegetarian recipes, and adding garbage collection stations. It is necessary to conduct research and study travel, and carry out systematic environmental education for Group Ⅳ, in order to popularize the importance of environmental protection by means of cultural performances, public welfare activities, and interesting prize question and answer activities, which can make tourists feel the importance of a low-carbon life, so as to improve their low-carbon literacy.
From the perspective of the differences between ecological culture and low-carbon tourism cognition, the different demographic groups should start with different aspects and conduct targeted education guidance to achieve the carbon neutral vision. For the groups with high ecological culture cognition, we should transform their ecological culture cognition into low-carbon tourism cognition, and then guide them in practicing low-carbon behavior. Tourist destinations can make use of the female’s consumption characteristics to add nutritious vegetarian options. Tourism destinations can attract the attention and practice of the elderly in low-carbon tourism through the medium of ecological culture propaganda films. With the help of research and study travel, environmental education and low-carbon knowledge can be conveyed, and low-carbon cognition of the low-educated group can be improved. Tourist destinations can add simple characteristic homestay options and pay attention to the cultural development of catering, so as to improve the low-carbon behavior practices of the high-educated group. Tourist destinations can add convenient low-carbon service facilities and improve the low-carbon circulation system of star hotels, so as to enhance the participation willingness for low-carbon tourism in the high-income group.

References

Publishing order | Descend order by publishing year | Descend order by cited within
[1]
Antequera P D, Pacheco J D, Herrera B C, et al. 2021. Tourism, transport and climate change: The carbon footprint of international air traffic on islands. Sustainability, 13(4): 1795. DOI: 10.3390/SU13041795.

DOI

[2]
Atzori R, Fyall A, Tasci A D A, et al. 2019. The role of social representations in shaping tourist responses to potential climate change impacts: An analysis of Florida’s coastal destinations. Journal of Travel Research, 58(8): 1373-1388.

DOI

[3]
Birkenberg A, Narjes M E, Birner R, et al. 2021. The potential of carbon neutral labeling to engage coffee consumers in climate change mitigation. Journal of Cleaner Production, 278: 123621. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123621.

DOI

[4]
Bogicevic V, Bujisic M, Cobanoglu C, et al. 2018. Gender and age preferences of hotel room design. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 30(2): 874-899.

DOI

[5]
Butler R W. 1991. Tourism, environment, and sustainable development. Environmental Conservation, 18(3): 201-209.

DOI

[6]
Caputi J. 2020. The culture of feedback: Ecological thinking in 70s America Daniel Belgrad, University of Chicago Press, 2019. The Journal of American Culture, 43(3): 271-272.

DOI

[7]
Cheng Z H, Wen L, Liu T X, et al. 2019. Study on low carbon cognition level of hotel practitioners in Wutai Mountain. Journal of Arid Land Resources and Environment, 33(7): 37-42. (in Chinese)

[8]
Coskun G, Norman W. 2021. The influence of impulsiveness on local food purchase behavior in a tourism context. Tourism: An International Interdisciplinary Journal, 69(1): 7-18.

DOI

[9]
Deng X, Xie J, Teng F. 2021. What is carbon neutrality? Climate Change Research, 17(1): 107-113. (in Chinese)

[10]
Du P, Zhang C, Yang L. 2020. The impact of perceived value and group norm on environmentally friendly behavior of mangrove reserves in coastal cities: The mediating role of tourism satisfaction. Journal of Coastal Research, 111(1): 243-247.

[11]
Fang C, Wang Z, Liu H. 2020. Beautiful China initiative: Human-nature harmony theory, evaluation index system and application. Journal of Geographical Sciences, 30(5): 691-704.

DOI

[12]
Gao L, Hiruta Y, Ashina S. 2020. Promoting renewable energy through willingness to pay for transition to a low carbon society in Japan. Renewable Energy, 162: 818-830.

DOI

[13]
Gao Y, Ma Y, Bai K, et al. 2021. Which factors influence individual pro-environmental behavior in the tourism context: Rationality, affect, or morality? Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 26(5): 516-538.

DOI

[14]
Han J. 2018. Carrying capacity of low carbon tourism environment in coastal areas from the perspective of ecological efficiency. Journal of Coastal Research, 83(1): 199-203.

DOI

[15]
Han Z Y, Li T, Liu X M. 2021. Temporal and spatial characteristics and evolution of China’s inbound tourism carbon footprint. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 12(1): 56-67.

[16]
Huang B, Xing K, Pullen S, et al. 2020. Exploring carbon neutral potential in urban densification: A precinct perspective and scenario analysis. Sustainability, 12(12): 4814. DOI: 10.3390/su12124814.

DOI

[17]
Jeong Y, Kim S K, Yu J G. 2020. Sustaining sporting destinations through improving tourists’ mental and physical health in the tourism environment: The case of Korea. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(1): 122. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph17010122.

DOI

[18]
Jin C, Cheng J Q, Xu J, et al. 2018. Self-driving tourism induced carbon emission flows and its determinants in well-developed regions: A case study of Jiangsu Province, China. Journal of Cleaner Production, 186(10): 191-202.

DOI

[19]
Le T H, Nguyen C P. 2020. The impact of tourism on carbon dioxide emissions: Insights from 95 countries. Applied Economics, 53(2): 235-261.

DOI

[20]
Li Y C. 2020. Ecological governance from the perspective of a community with a shared future for mankind. Ecological Economy, 36(1): 205-210. (in Chinese)

DOI

[21]
Lin L. 2020. Ecological beauty is the realization of human freedom. World Scientific Research Journal, 6(4): 143-146.

[22]
Liu J R. 2021. College students’ cognition and practice of ecological culture. Hunan Social Sciences, (2): 9-14. (in Chinese)

[23]
Liu Y, Yang D W, Xu H Z. 2017. Factors influencing consumer willingness to pay for low-carbon products: A simulation study in China. Business Strategy and the Environment, 26(7): 972-984.

DOI

[24]
Lu A, Gursoy D, Chiappa G D. 2016. The influence of materialism on ecotourism attitudes and behaviors. Journal of Travel Research, 55(2): 1-14.

[25]
Luo F, Moyle B D, Moyle C, et al. 2020. Drivers of carbon emissions in China’s tourism industry. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 28(5): 747-770.

DOI

[26]
Ma X Q, Zhang H F, Guo Z Q. 2021. Research on the construction of ecological civilization in Yunnan from the perspective of national ecological culture. Ecological Economy, 37(2): 216-221. (in Chinese)

[27]
Mallapaty S. 2020. How China could be carbon neutral by mid-century. Nature, 586(7830): 482-483.

DOI

[28]
Mcdonald T, Aronson J, Eisenberg C, et al. 2019. The SER standards, cultural ecosystems, and the nature-culture nexus—A reply to Evans and Davis. Restoration Ecology, 27(2): 243-246.

DOI

[29]
Meng S, Pham T, Dwyer L, et al. 2020. Carbon price impacts on the Chinese tourism industry. Journal of Travel Research, 60(2): 370-383.

DOI

[30]
Munanura I E, Backman K F, Sabuhoro E, et al. 2020. The potential of tourism benefits to reduce forest dependence behavior of impoverished residents adjacent to volcanoes national park in Rwanda. Tourism Planning and Development, 17(5): 475-496.

DOI

[31]
Newton P W, Rogers B C. 2020. Transforming built environments: Towards carbon neutral and blue-green cities. Sustainability, 12(11): 4745. DOI: 10.3390/su12114745.

DOI

[32]
Nieuwenhuijsen M J. 2020. Urban and transport planning pathways to carbon neutral, liveable and healthy cities: A review of the current evidence. Environment International, 140: 105661. DOI: 10.1016/j.envint.2020.105661.

DOI

[33]
Odell P, Rauland V, Murcia K. 2020. Schools: An untapped opportunity for a carbon neutral future. Sustainability, 13(1): 46. DOI: 10.3390/SU13010046.

DOI

[34]
Pan Y, Weng G, Li C, et al. 2021. Coupling coordination and influencing factors among tourism carbon emission, tourism economic and tourism innovation. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(4): 1601. DOI: 10.3390/IJERPH18041601.

DOI

[35]
Pereda P C, Lucchesi A, Garcia C P, et al. 2019. Neutral carbon tax and environmental targets in Brazil. Economic Systems Research, 31(1): 70-91.

DOI

[36]
Rasoolimanesh S M, Khoo-Lattimore C, Noor S M, et al. 2020. Tourist engagement and loyalty: Gender matters? Current Issues in Tourism, 5(13): 22-34.

DOI

[37]
Ren Y, Zhao C R, Fu J L. 2019. Dynamic study on tourism carbon footprint and carbon carrying capacity in Sichuan Province. Journal of Geoscience and Environment Protection, 7(7): 14-24.

DOI

[38]
Seetaram N, Song H, Ye S, et al. 2018. Estimating willingness to pay air passenger duty. Annals of Tourism Research, 92(9): 85-97.

[39]
Setyowati E, Widjajanti R, Sardjono A B, et al. 2019. Spatial planning and traditional culture based urban acupuncture concept on upgrading low carbon tourism village. International Journal of Engineering and Advanced Technology, 9(1): 7087-7095.

DOI

[40]
Sun Y Y. 2019. Global value chains and national tourism carbon competitiveness. Journal of Travel Research, 58(5): 808-823.

DOI

[41]
Sun Y Y, Higham J. 2021. Overcoming information asymmetry in tourism carbon management: The application of a new reporting architecture to Aotearoa New Zealand. Tourism Management, 83: 104231. DOI: 10.1016/j.tourman.2020.104231.

DOI

[42]
Tang W, Wu P, Zhang Y, et al. 2021. Analysis on the current situation and development trend of China’s electrification level and electric energy substitution under the background of carbon neutral. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 661(1): 012019. DOI: 10.1088/1755-1315/661/1/012019.

DOI

[43]
Wang R, Qi R, Cheng J H, et al. 2020. The behavior and cognition of ecological civilization among Chinese university students. Journal of Cleaner Production, 243: 118464. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118464.

DOI

[44]
Wang W, Qiao J J, Cheng J L, et al. 2019. Research on the impact of economic development of tourism industry based on low carbon mode. International Journal of Low-Carbon Technologies, 14(2): 241-246.

DOI

[45]
Whiteside K H. 1998. Worldliness and respect for nature: An ecological appreciation of Hannah Arendt’s conception of culture. Environmental Values, 7(1): 25-40.

DOI

[46]
Wu W J, Zhang X L, Yang Z P, et al. 2017. Creating a low carbon tourism community by public cognition, intention and behaviour change analysisa case study of a heritage site (Tianshan Tianchi, China). Open Geosciences, 9(1): 197-210.

[47]
Yangka D, Rauland V, Newman P. 2019. Carbon neutral policy in action: The case of Bhutan. Climate Policy, 19(6): 672-687.

DOI

[48]
Zhang H, Huang Z F, Ju S L. 2017. An analysis of the influential factors of low carbon travel behavior of tourists in ancient water towns: A case study of Zhouzhuang, Jinxi, and Qiandeng in China. Tourism Science, 31(5): 46-64. (in Chinese)

[49]
Zhang J K, Zhang Y. 2019. Exploring the impacts of carbon tax on tourism related energy consumption in China. Sustainable Development, 27(3): 296-303.

DOI

[50]
Zhao L M, Zhang H B, Sun J H. 2015. Factors affecting low-carbon tourism behavior under tourist situations in Sanya. Resources Science, 37(1): 201-210. (in Chinese)

Options
Outlines

/

〈 〉