EN中文

Journal of Resources and Ecology >

2025 , Vol. 16 >Issue 1: 172 - 183

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5814/j.issn.1674-764x.2025.01.016

Ecotourism

Awe-inspiring Environmental Engagement: Unveiling the Impact of Awe on Pro-environmental Behavior in Nature-based Tourism Destinations

  • PENG Hongsong , 1 ,
  • LI Lingling 1 ,
  • LI Chang , 1, * ,
  • LI Peizhe 2 ,
  • XIAO Xiao 3 ,
  • ZHONG Shien 1
Expand
  • 1. School of Business Administration, Nanjing University of Finance and Economics, Nanjing 210023, China
  • 2. Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism Management, North Carolina State University, Raleigh 27695, USA
  • 3. School of Community Resources and Development, Arizona State University, Phoenix 85004, USA
*LI Chang, E-mail:

PENG Hongsong, E-mail:

Received date: 2024-06-03

  Accepted date: 2024-09-12

  Online published: 2025-01-21

Supported by

National Natural Science Foundation of China(41801129)

Fold

Abstract

Awe, as a positive emotional experience, is recognized for its role in facilitating tourists’ pro-environmental behavior (TPEB). However, despite its significance, awe has received minimal attention in tourism-related research. This research introduces an expanded model of the theory of planned behavior (TPB) that integrates awe into the rational-oriented TPB framework to examine its impact on TPEB. We collected data at the Mount Huangshan scenic spot in China and employed structural equation modeling for data analysis. Findings suggest that the extended TPB model, which incorporates the emotion of awe, outperforms the original TPB model in predicting TPEB. Awe experienced in nature-based destinations is mainly influenced by the perception of the natural environment (PNE) and significantly predicts TPEB. Study findings offer an integrated framework combining emotional and rational perspectives to understand the factors driving TPEB in nature-based tourism. Furthermore, the study aims to establish connections between the psychological experience of awe and the philosophical perspective of the sublime. Importantly, our findings provide compelling evidence supporting the role of nature-based tourism as an effective model to facilitate tourists’ environmental attitudes, emotions, and behaviors. Finally, the implications for practice are discussed.

Key words： tourists’ pro-environmental behavior; awe; stimulus-organism-response framework; theory of planned behavior; nature-based tourism

Cite this article

PENG Hongsong , LI Lingling , LI Chang , LI Peizhe , XIAO Xiao , ZHONG Shien . Awe-inspiring Environmental Engagement: Unveiling the Impact of Awe on Pro-environmental Behavior in Nature-based Tourism Destinations[J]. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 2025 , 16(1) : 172 -183 . DOI: 10.5814/j.issn.1674-764x.2025.01.016

1 Introduction

Environmental issues, such as environmental pollution, biodiversity loss, and greenhouse gas emissions, have emerged as hurdles towards sustainable destinations (Gössling, 2002). These challenges can be attributed, at least partially, to the excessive tourism activities and the negative behaviors exhibited by tourists (Wang et al., 2020). It is imperative to acknowledge that addressing these issues effectively requires the implementation of comprehensive strategic changes from economic, technological, and policy standpoints. For example, the application of advanced technology has shown promise in mitigating the negative environmental outcomes associated with tourism destinations (Guo et al., 2022; Peng et al., 2017). However, these measures alone are insufficient, as they have not adequately addressed the human dimensions of environmental conservation with destinations (Halpenny, 2010). As highlighted by Tuan (1974), “without self-understanding, we cannot hope for enduring solutions to environmental problems, which are fundamentally human problems”. As a result, there has been a growing recognition among tourism scholars and practitioners regarding the connection between tourists’ pro-environmental behavior (TPEB) and the conservation of destination environments. This has led to a growing emphasis on promoting TPEB in destination management for the purpose of sustainability (Larson et al., 2015). Hence, investigating the driving factors and underlying mechanisms that shape TPEB has become a crucial research area in environmental management for destinations.
TPEB encompasses a range of behaviors adopted by tourists with the aim of minimizing environmental impacts, contributing to environmental conservation, and minimizing disturbance to the ecosystem service and biodiversity of destinations (Lee et al., 2013). Over the past two decades, a multitude of psychological behavior models have been employed to forecast TPEB, including the theory of planned behavior (TPB), the norm activation model (NAM), the model of goal-directed behavior, the value belief norm theory, and integrated analysis frameworks combining these theories (Juvan and Dolnicar, 2014; Zeng and Zhong, 2017; Han, 2021; Gao et al., 2023; Xie and Xu, 2024; Yang et al., 2024). Among these models, the TPB model has garnered extensive usage in various studies to predict environmental behaviors among both tourists and the general public for its consistent findings it provides (Klöckner, 2013; Ulker-Demirel and Ciftci, 2020).
However, there still exists a gap in the attitude-behavior within the current TPB model when explaining environmental behavior (Juvan and Dolnicar, 2014). The TPB revolves around elucidating an individual’s behavioral intention by focusing on three key constructs: subjective norms (SN), perceived behavioral control (PBC), and attitudes (ATT). These constructs are predominantly rational predictors and are utilized to comprehend and predict the likelihood of pro-environmental behavior (Ajzen, 1991; Ajzen, 2011). Nonetheless, the rational-choice-based model does not encompass emotional factors in predicting environmental behavior (Koenig-Lewis et al., 2014), making it challenging for the traditional TPB model to fully elucidate TPEB.
An emerging pipeline of research has been exploring the influence of emotional factors in elucidating environmental behaviors (Russell et al., 2017; Chen and Huang, 2022). Meanwhile, empirical evidence suggests that incorporating anticipated emotions into the TPB model enhances its explanatory power in predicting consumers’ ecological or green behaviors (Kim et al., 2013; Haj-Salem et al., 2022). In tourism literature, numerous researchers emphasize the primacy of emotions over rational factors in predicting pro-environmental behavior (Zhao et al., 2020; Gao et al., 2021; Chen and Huang, 2022). They argue that TPEB, as a sustainable behavior, is influenced not only by the rational factors of tourists but also by emotional factors. However, existing literature has been excessively focused on general and anticipated emotions (Russell et al., 2017; Chen and Huang, 2022), paying limited attention to specific emotions that individuals have experienced, prompting scholars to call for future research on their roles (Russell et al., 2017; Zhao et al., 2020). Moreover, studies that simultaneously consider the specific real emotions and the traditional rational predictors of the TPB model in driving TPEB have been scarce. This knowledge gap in the literature serves as the starting point for this article.
Awe, as a specific emotional experience, carries significant relevance for tourism and holds the potential to influence TPEB (Wang and Lyu, 2019). Awe is a complex emotion encompassing elements such as confusion, fear, excitement, and compassion (Keltner and Haidt, 2003), and is closely intertwined with the concept of the sublime in philosophy. Since the 18th century, awe has been depicted as an important spiritual connection between human and nature. For instance, Bartram (1998) expressed awe-inspiring emotions when camping in Florida’s Lake George, described the scene as “a sublimely awful scene of power and magnificence, a world of mounts piled upon mountains”. Recent literature has sporadically addressed the nature of tourists' experience of awe and explored methods for measuring this phenomenon (Coghlan et al., 2012). Researchers have also investigated the antecedents (e.g. natural scenery, religious ambiance, and authenticity) and outcomes (e.g. satisfaction, pro-environmental behavior, revisit intention, and national identity) associated with awe, across diverse tourism contexts (Wang et al., 2021; Yan and Jia, 2021; Jiang et al., 2022; Yan et al., 2022). Despite the growing recognition of the emotion of awe in various fields, its exploration remains limited within the tourism literature (Yan and Jia, 2021). From the existing tourism literature, except for the studies conducted by Niu and Liu (2022) and Jiang et al. (2022), there are few studies investigating the impact of eliciting awe on TPEB in nature-based tourism destinations. Specifically, the role of awe in predicting TPEB within the TPB model has been seldom explored in the existing literature.
To bridge these gaps, our study aims to investigate three research objectives: 1) Examine the impact of eliciting awe on TPEB; 2) Enhance the existing TPB model by integrating the emotion of awe into the rational-choice-based framework, and examine whether the extended model improves its explanatory power in predicting TPEB; 3) Investigate the relative significance of the rational predictors from the TPB model and the emotion of awe in shaping TPEB, thereby discerning which factor plays a leading role. To accomplish these objectives, we collected data at the Mount Huangshan scenic spot in China and employed structural equation modeling for data analysis. By employing a holistic theoretical framework that integrates both emotional and rational perspectives, this study provides an integrated approach to comprehending the driving factors underlying TPEB in nature-based tourism destinations. Furthermore, our study aims to establish connections between the psychological experience of awe and the philosophical perspective of the sublime, offering simultaneous insights from both disciplines. Moreover, our model places equal emphasis on the significance of TPEB and the educational role of nature-based tourism (Zhang et al., 2023). Importantly, our findings provide compelling evidence supporting the role of nature-based tourism as an effective model to facilitate tourists’ environmental attitudes, emotions, and behaviors.

2 Background and theoretical framework

2.1 Awe and awe in tourism

Awe has been a topic of extensive exploration in psychological literature. A study conducted by Keltner and Haidt (2003) proposed a conceptual framework of awe, focusing on its scientific meaning. The model of awe consists of two important elements: ‘perceived vastness’ and ‘a need for accommodation’. The former refers to the requirement that the object of awe should be significantly larger than individual’s typical cognitive reference system in size or scope. The latter suggests that ‘individuals must adjust their existing beliefs to make sense of the awe-inspiring experience’. Bonner and Friedman (2011) identified ten thematic elements associated with the awe experience, including ‘profoundness, connectedness, fear, vastness, numinous existential awareness, openness and acceptance, ineffable wonder, presence, and heightened perceptions’. Building on existing experimental literature, one recent study developed a scale to measure awe experience, encompassing multiple dimensions such as self-diminishment, perceived vastness, and need for accommodation (Yaden et al., 2019).
Awe is closely intertwined with the concept of the sublime in philosophy. However, there is a notable absence of awe in environmental philosophy research, and there are only a few studies exploring sublime as a philosophic concept in environmental psychology domain. According to Burke's notion of the sublime, certain natural objects and phenomena possess the power to evoke a profound and intense experience of terror and awe in the minds of observers (Shaw, 2006; Arcangeli et al., 2020). Keltner and Haidt (2003) characterized the sublime as an emotion akin to awe, emphasizing its subjective nature. Similarly, Clewis (2021) proposed that the experience of the sublime can be understood as a form of awe, specifically aesthetic awe. The sublime is also described as having the potential to inspire individuals to live more morally and in accordance with higher ethical (Lee, 2012). Hence, studying empirical research on awe can contribute to a deeper understanding of the sublime in philosophy.
In addition to examining the nature of awe and its measurement, substantial empirical studies have explored the emotion of awe from two streams. Firstly, there has been a focus on identifying factors that evoke awe, often referred to as ‘awe elicitors’. In general, these awe elicitors can be categorized into three types: physical, sociocultural, and cognitive (Keltner and Haidt, 2003). For example, awe can be inspired when one encounters natural wonders, sacred religions, immense historical sites, extraordinary artistic expression, and other environmental stimuli (Shiota et al., 2007; Hicks, 2018). The second research stream explores the outcomes of awe on individuals’ self-cognition, attitudes, and behaviors. Awe has been associated with a Chinese saying ‘keep awe in mind, and you will stay out of improper behavior’, which suggest that awe enables individuals to transcend immediate self-interests and prioritize the welfare of the broader natural environment (Zelenski and Desrochers, 2021). According to this, the impact of awe on behavior is particularly relevant within Chinese cultural contexts. However, awe, as an emotion, is universally experienced and has been shown to have similar outcomes across different cultures.
Awe holds particular relevance for tourism and offers valuable insights into tourism studies (Wang and Lyu, 2019). Tourism experiences often provide ample opportunities for awe, given the presence of magnificent scenery, valuable heritage, and unique cultural encounters. However, despite its significance, awe has received minimal attention in tourism-related research (Yan and Jia, 2021). Driven by the ‘emotional turn’ in tourism research (Buda et al., 2014), the studies focusing on the emotion of awe have gradually developed over the past decade (Picard, 2012).
Within the realm of tourism studies, one area of focus attempts to conceptualize awe. Notably, Coghlan et al. (2012) proposed a framework that analyzes awe in the context of tourism, highlighting three key aspects, namely the ‘physiological response’ component, the ‘comparative uniqueness’ component, and the ‘schema-changing’ component. Furthermore, Powell et al. (2012) examined within Antarctic tourism and identified five sub-dimensions of awe, including the spiritual connection, the goal clarification, the nature-human relationship, the transformative experience, and the humility. These studies have important theoretical significance for the conceptualization and measurement of awe in tourism contexts.
Another area of research delves into the factors that contribute to tourists experiencing awe, as well as the subsequent effects of such encounters. On one hand, several studies have detected the elicitation of awe in nature-based tourism, dark tourism, religious tourism, cultural tourism, and even man-made landscapes (Pearce et al., 2017; Yan and Jia, 2021). On the other hand, a handful of studies have explored the profound impact of awe emotion on tourists’ satisfaction, revisit intention, national identity and pro-environmental engagement (Wang et al., 2021; Yan and Jia, 2021; Yan et al., 2022; Jiang et al., 2022). However, except for Niu and Liu (2022) and Jiang et al. (2022), the current tourism literature has not extensively investigated the elicitors of awe and its influence on TPEB, particularly within the nature-based tourism context.

2.2 TPEB and TPB Model

The TPB posits that behavioral decisions are not impulsive but rather from a reasoned process influenced by ATT, SN, and PBC, which in turn shape behavioral intentions (Ajzen, 1991). ATT represents the individual's overall evaluation of a specific behavior. SN encompass the perceived expectations and social pressure from significant others. PBC refers to an individual’s perception of the extent to which they have the ability to engage in a particular behavior, considering the ease or difficulty associated with it (Ajzen, 1991). According to the TPB, individuals are more likely to intend to engage in a behavior when they hold positive attitudes towards it, perceive social pressures to perform the behavior from significant others, and believe that they have sufficient control to perform the intended behavior (Ajzen and Kruglanski, 2019).
Owing to its clarity, efficiency, and competency, the TPB has become one of the most prominent research models for explaining and forecasting deliberate behavior (Klöckner, 2013). Numerous empirical studies employing the TPB or relevant extended models have provided substantive support for the positive associations between ATT, SN, PBC, and intentions towards pro-environmental behaviors (Lou et al., 2022). Within the realm of tourism, leisure, and hospitality, the rational perspective based on the TPB model has gained significant traction and enjoys widespread application (Ulker-Demirel and Ciftci, 2020; Gao et al., 2021). Several researchers have confirmed that the TPB’s robust explanatory efficacy and power in understanding the pro-environmental behavior of tourists or customers. For example, studies focusing on nature-based destinations have revealed a positive and direct relationship between and among TPB factors and TPEB (Wang et al., 2018; Li and Wu, 2019). Meanwhile, Han (2015) and Liu et al. (2022) confirmed that TPB variables strongly correlate with consumers’ inclination to adopt environmentally-friendly practices within the hospitality industry.
Therefore, this study adopts the TPB model as the foundational framework to examine the influence of rational predictors on TPEB in the context of nature-based tourism. Specifically, following hypotheses were proposed:
H1: ATT positively influence TPEB.
H2: SN positively influence TPEB.
H3: PBC positively influence TPEB.

2.3 PNE, ATT, Awe, and TPEB based on SOR framework

The Stimulus-Organism-Response (SOR) framework, initially developed by Mehrabian and Russell in 1974. According to this conceptual framework, external stimuli elicit internal affective and cognitive states within individuals, which then influence their subsequent behavioral responses. The SOR framework has proven instrumental in analyzing various aspects of human behavior, including TPEB (Jiang et al., 2022). Building upon this framework, we propose that when tourists immerse themselves in the expansive natural environment of a nature-based destination (referred to as perception of the natural environment, PNE in this study), it stimulates their attitudes toward environmental behaviors and may evoke emotion of awe, ultimately promoting pro-environmental actions.
Specifically, PNE serves as a tangible catalyst for evoking awe in tourists. PNE encompasses the subjective assessment of a destination’s natural environment features, as outlined by Hartig et al. (2014) and Jiang et al. (2022). Prior studies have demonstrated that the grand, magical, vast, novel, powerful, and extreme characteristics of nature-based destinations easily inspire awe in tourists (Pearce et al., 2017; Jiang et al., 2022). These natural landscapes and environments include mountains, oceans, storms, sunrises or sunsets, sea of clouds, geological formations, and naturally occurring phenomena such as mesmerizing waves or intricate fractals exhibiting infinitely repeating patterns. Consistent with the SOR framework, two empirical studies further demonstrated that PNE positively impacts tourists’ awe, which in turn promotes TPEB in nature-based destinations (Jiang et al., 2022; Niu and Liu, 2022). Meanwhile, in nature-based destinations, PNE also has the potential to shape tourist’s attitudes toward pro-environmental behaviors, as nature-based tourism serves as a powerful educational tool (Zhang et al., 2023).
Arousal theory, a prominent theory in environmental psychology, highlights the physiological responses individuals undergo as a result of various environmental stimuli, subsequently influencing their behavior (Harrison, 2015). Wang et al. (2019) have advanced the notion that the natural environment of a tourist destination, being an essential component of the environmental backdrop, often fosters tourists’ inclination towards meaningful environmentally protective behaviors. Furthermore, the direct association between the PNE and TPEB has been supported by Niu and Liu (2022) and Jiang et al. (2022).
According to the aforementioned theory and supporting evidence, this study argues PNE can not only promotes TPEB by cultivating attitudes toward environmental behaviors and arousing the emotion of awe, but also directly affects TPEB. Hence, the following hypotheses are therefore proposed:
H4: The PNE positively affects ATT.
H5: The PNE positively affects the emotion of awe.
H6: The emotion of awe positively affects TPEB.
H7: The PNE positively affects TPEB.

2.4 An extended TPB model integrating awe into the rational-choice-based TPB model

Despite its widespread popularity, the TPB model is essentially a rational-choice-based model and its variables being highly rational predictors (Ajzen, 1991; Ajzen, 2011). As a result, it tends to overlook the role of emotional factors in explaining and forecasting environmentally relevant behavior (Koenig-Lewis et al., 2014). While the TPB model has garnered significant empirical support in explaining environmental behaviors, one of its main criticisms is the limited consideration given to the irrational determinants of behavior, particularly emotions, which play a key role in the intentional process. Therefore, researchers often explore the possibility of augmenting the explained variance in intention or behavior by introducing one or more supplementary predictors.
Fortunately, over the past decade, scholars have acknowledged the limitations of the TPB model and recognized the critical role of emotional factors in explaining environmental behavior (Rivis et al., 2009). Empirical evidence has shown that the incorporation of emotions into the TPB model substantially improves its predictive value and explanatory power in various sustainable behaviors, including ecological packaging (Koenig-Lewis et al., 2014) and purchasing green products (Haj-Salem et al., 2022). Recent studies in tourism literature have further emphasized the dominant influence of emotions, rather than rational factors, in forecasting pro-environmental behavior (Zhao et al., 2020; Chen and Huang, 2022). For instance, a review by Gao et al. (2021) demonstrated that individuals’ pro-environmental behavior within the tourism context is influenced by a combination of moral, emotional, and rational factors, with emotional factors playing a leading role. However, many of these studies primarily concentrated on general emotions (Russell et al., 2017), as well as anticipated emotions (Kim et al., 2013; Haj-Salem et al., 2022), while neglecting specific emotions experienced by individuals. This limitation has prompted researchers (Russell et al., 2017; Zhao et al., 2020) to call for future research investigating the role of specific emotions. Additionally, studies that simultaneously integrate specific real emotions and the traditional rational predictors of the TPB model to investigate the underlying mechanism of TPEB have been largely underexplored, especially in the nature-based tourism context.
Hence, this study developed an extended TPB model that incorporates the experience of awe, including the emotion of awe and its environmental elicitor in the nature-based tourism context (namely PNE), into the rational-choice-based TPB model. We expect that this extended model can better explain TPEB in nature-based destination than the original TPB model. Meanwhile, we expect that the awe emotion, rather than rational evaluation process of TPB model, plays a leading role in predicting TPEB. Based on the aforementioned arguments and supporting evidence, the following hypotheses are therefore proposed:
H8: The extended TPB model is superior in explaining TPEB than the original TPB model.
H9: The awe emotion, rather than rational predictors in TPB model, plays a leading role in predicting TPEB.
The proposed framework of the extended TPB model is displayed in Figure 1.
Figure 1 Proposed framework of the extended TPB model

3 Methodology

3.1 Study site

The study site selected for this research is Mount Huangshan scenic spot, located in southern region of Anhui Province, China. Mount Huangshan is a renowned nature-based scenic spot (Xu et al., 2016; Wang and Lyu, 2019). It was designated as a mixed site of World Heritage by UNESCO in 1990. The area is characterized by its magnificent natural scenery and striking ecological resources, including unique and vibrant pine trees, perpetual sea of clouds, breathtaking sunrises and sunsets, massive granitic boulders, and naturally formed grotesque rocks (Figure 2). Mount Huangshan attracts over three millions tourists annually, who are easily inspired by its awe-inspiring natural beauty and environment (Wang and Lyu, 2019). However, the rapid development of the tourism industry, coupled with the irresponsible behavior exhibited by some tourists have emerged as the most obvious threats to the natural environment of the area. Therefore, Mount Huangshan was chosen to collect data relevant to the research context.
Figure 2 Awe inspiring landscape of Mount Huangshan

Note: Retrieved from https://hsgwh.huangshan.gov.cn/.

3.2 Measurement instrument

To assess the constructs under investigation, multi-item measurement scales were utilized. The measurement items were adapted from previous studies and slightly modified to suit the present context. In particular, PNE was measured using four items adopted from Lu et al. (2017), Niu and Liu (2022), and Jiang et al. (2022). Awe was assessed using four items according to Coghlan et al. (2012) and Yan and Jia (2021). ATT, SN, and PBC were measured using multiple items derived from Ajzen (1991), Han (2015), and Wang et al. (2020). The dependent variable, TPEB, was evaluated using three items adapted from Wang et al. (2018) and Wang et al. (2019).
All measurement items were initially developed in English. By applying he back-translation procedure (Brislin, 1970), translation discrepancies were resolved. To assess the usability and understandability of the items, an online pilot test was conducted with a sample of 52 students and 8 academic scholars specializing in tourism management or tourism geographies. Based on their valuable suggestions, minor adjustments were made to address issues related to wording, item order, and questionnaire layout. The measurement items employed in this research were reported in the Table 1. Each item was rated on a five-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (‘strongly disagree’) to 5 (‘strongly agree’). Our final questionnaire comprised an introductory letter, demographic information inquiries, and measures pertaining to the study’s constructs.
Table 1 Descriptive statistics of variables
Measures Mean S.D. Skew Kurtosis
Perception of the natural environment (PNE)
PNE1. Mount Huangshan gives me a fantastic display of the nature 4.444 0.563 -0.368 -0.837
PNE2. I feel Mount Huangshan is magnificent 4.531 0.547 -0.584 -0.787
PNE3. Mount Huangshan impresses me with its majestic and precipitous appeal 4.564 0.540 -0.686 -0.689
PNE4. Mount Huangshan shows me how strong the nature is 4.499 0.553 -0.486 -0.852
Awe (AWE)
AWE1. I feel excited in Mount Huangshan 4.200 0.552 0.056 -0.154
AWE2. I feel unusual in Mount Huangshan 4.294 0.568 -0.087 -0.562
AWE3. I feel unexpected in Mount Huangshan 4.167 0.578 -0.103 0.143
AWE4. I feel humble in Mount Huangshan 4.157 0.536 0.117 0.140
Attitudes toward environmental behaviors (ATT)
ATT1. I think protecting the environment of Mount Huangshan is wise 4.668 0.507 -1.117 0.096
ATT2. I think protecting the environment of Mount Huangshan is good 4.651 0.550 -1.660 4.443
ATT3. I think protecting the environment of Mount Huangshan is worthwhile 4.703 0.509 -1.451 1.156
ATT4. I think protecting the environment of Mount Huangshan is beneficial 4.728 0.483 -1.488 1.205
Subjective norms (SN)
SN1. Most people who are important to me think I should protect the environment of Mount Huangshan 4.531 0.583 -0.807 -0.334
SN2. People whose opinions I value would want me to protect the environment of Mount Huangshan 4.509 0.617 -0.868 -0.257
SN3. People I am familiar with would protect the environment of Mount Huangshan 4.449 0.650 -0.768 -0.467
Perceived behavioral control (PBC)
PBC1. I am confident that if I want, I can protect the environment of Mount Huangshan 4.162 0.660 -0.293 -0.315
PBC2. Whether or not I protect the environment of Mount Huangshan is completely up to me 4.102 0.789 -0.460 -0.359
PBC3. I have resources, time, and opportunities to protect the environment of Mount Huangshan 4.000 0.851 -0.488 -0.232
Tourists’ pro-environmental behavior (TPEB)
TPEB1. I am willing to follow the tourism regulations of the administration of Mount Huangshan 4.571 0.544 -0.754 -0.548
TPEB2. I am willing to protect the facilities of Mount Huangshan from being destroyed 4.621 0.539 -1.022 -0.006
TPEB3. I am willing to do reasonable disposal of wastes incurred during my travel 4.574 0.548 -0.799 -0.445

Note: S.D. = Standard deviation.

3.3 Data collection and participants

The on-site survey took place between June 20th and June 25th, 2022, covering weekdays and weekends, at Mount Huangshan. Four well-trained researcher assistants carried out the self-administered questionnaires using convenient sampling techniques. The questionnaires were distributed and collected from Chinese domestic tourists at major attractions, rest areas, and scenic exits. When distributing the questionnaire, the researcher assistants ensured the quality of the survey by confirming that the respondents were tourists, not local residents, selecting tourists capable of understanding and completing the questionnaire, and ensuring that tourists had a relatively complete tourism experience. A total of 600 questionnaires were distributed and subsequently collected for the purpose of this study. However, in adherence to academic rigor, a careful examination was conducted to identify and exclude questionnaires with missing data, outliers with the same answer for all items, surveys completed by respondents under the age of 16, and surveys indicating a lack of attention by the respondents (all marked by the researcher assistants), the remaining 401 valid responses were retained for data analysis.
Among 401 valid respondents, the proportion of male slightly exceeded that of females, accounting for 57.4% and 42.6%, respectively. The majority of participants were younger tourists, with 89.1% falling between 16 and 44. This demographic trend can be attributed to the feature of the study site, as mountain-type of scenic spots tend to attract younger audience. The participants demonstrated a high level of education, with 65.3% having obtained an associate/bachelor degree or higher, aligning with the widespread accessibility of higher education in China. The participants represented diverse occupations and reported a moderate monthly income, with 79.3% earning below 7000 yuan. Overall, the demographic profile of the participants closely resembled that of a previous study at Mount Huangshan scenic spot (Wang et al., 2019).

3.4 Analytical methods

Following Anderson and Gerbing’s (1988) two-step approach, the data were first subjected to confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to evaluate the fit of the proposed model to the data. Subsequently, the reliability and validity of constructs with multiple items were analyzed. Finally, the proposed model and hypotheses were evaluated using structural equation modeling (SEM).

4 Results

4.1 Preliminary analysis

Before implementing Anderson and Gerbing’s (1988) approach, a thorough examination of data assumptions was conducted to ensure their validity. Skewness and kurtosis coefficients were calculated for each item, revealing that the absolute values of skewness were below 3 and the kurtosis coefficient were below the conservative threshold of 10 (Table 1). These results indicate that non-normality does not pose a major concern for the subsequent data analyses (Kline, 2011). Furthermore, a multicollinearity diagnosis was performed to assess the correlations between latent variables, ranging from 0.161 and 0.442 (P<0.01). The results showed that the variance inflation factors (VIF) for the variables were less than 10, indicating that multicollinearity was not a significant concern in this study (Stine, 1995).
To mitigate the potential influence of common method bias stemming from the use of self-administered questionnaires, several measures were implemented to restrain for this bias (Podsakoff et al., 2003). First, respondents were assured that the data of survey would be used exclusively for research purposes and treated as confidential. Second, they were informed that there were no right/wrong answers to the items and encouraged to express their genuine perceptions and opinions. Third, the order of constructs was randomized to avoid implying causal relationships between them. Additionally, the Harman’s single-factor test (Ouyang et al., 2019) was conducted to assess the existence of the common method bias. The result suggested that 6 factors with eigenvalues greater than one could be extracted through factor analysis, explaining 72.23% of the total variance. Meanwhile, the first factor accounted for 31.458% of the variance, which is below the benchmark value (i.e. 50.0%) (Podsakoff et al., 2003). Hence, the common method bias was not considered a major concern in current study.

4.2 Confirmatory factor analysis

CFA was performed to estimate the measurement model. According to the criteria proposed by Fornell and Larcker (1981), the results indicated that the measurement model exhibited a satisfactory fit to the data (χ2/df = 1.595, P<0.001, RMSEA = 0.039, NFI = 0.935, RFI = 0.922, IFI = 0.975, TLI = 0.969, CFI = 0.975). The results of reliability and convergent validity analysis were showed in Table 2.
Table 2 Reliability and convergent validity analysis
Variables Items Loading Cronbach’s alpha CR AVE
Perception of the natural environment (PNE) PNE1 0.747 0.859 0.879 0.646
PNE2 0.872
PNE3 0.835
PNE4 0.754
Awe (AWE)
 AWE1 0.726 0.778 0.828 0.546
AWE2 0.712
AWE3 0.757
AWE4 0.760
Attitudes toward environmental behaviors (ATT) ATT1 0.830 0.904 0.912 0.720
ATT2 0.833
ATT3 0.869
ATT4 0.862
Subjective norms (SN) SN1 0.815 0.893 0.890 0.730
SN2 0.887
SN3 0.859
Perceived behavioral control (PBC) PBC1 0.803 0.790 0.864 0.680
PBC2 0.838
PBC3 0.832
Tourists’ pro-environmental behavior (TPEB) TPEB1 0.741 0.785 0.814 0.595
TPEB2 0.738
TPEB3 0.831

Note: All standardized factor loadings were significant at 0.001 level.

To assess reliability, Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability (CR) (Hair et al., 1998) were employed. The results in Table 2 demonstrate that Cronbach’s alpha values ranged from 0.778 to 0.904, and CR values ranged from 0.814 to 0.912 for the six latent variables. These values were higher than the threshold of 0.70 (Hair et al., 1998), indicating satisfactory reliability of the measures. Convergent validity was evaluated using item factor loading and average variance extracted (AVE). As presented in Table 2, the standardized factor loadings of the items ranged from 0.712 to 0.887 (P<0.001), exceeding the suggested threshold value of 0.70. The AVE values ranged from 0.546 to 0.730, exceeding the recommended criterion of 0.50 (Hair et al., 1998). Thus, the model demonstrated adequate convergent validity. To ascertain discriminant validity, the square root of the AVE for each variable was compared with the corresponding inter-variable correlation coefficients. As reported in Table 3, the square root of the AVE for each variable exceeds the corresponding inter-variable correlation estimates, thereby confirming discriminant validity (Hair et al., 1998).
Table 3 Discriminant validity analysis
Variables PNE AWE ATT SN PBC TPEB
PNE 0.804
AWE 0.352** 0.739
ATT 0.311** 0.312** 0.849
SN 0.321** 0.303** 0.378** 0.854
PBC 0.218** 0.185** 0.161** 0.309** 0.824
TPEB 0.413** 0.442** 0.373** 0.377** 0.209** 0.771

Note: The diagonal (bold) includes the square root of the AVE values. The correlations between the latent variables appear underneath the diagonal. **P < 0.01.

4.3 Hypotheses testing and parameter estimating

SEM analysis with maximum likelihood estimation was employed to examine the proposed model and hypotheses. The findings of hypothesis testing and parameter estimating are presented in Table 4. The goodness-of-fit statistics indicated a satisfactory fit for the structural model (χ2/df = 1.929, P < 0.001, RMSEA = 0.048, NFI = 0.920, RFI = 0.906, IFI = 0.960, TLI = 0.952, CFI = 0.959).
Table 4 Results of hypothesis testing and parameter estimating
Hypothesis paths Standardized coefficient t-value Results
H1: ATT → TPEB 0.178 3.238*** Supported
H2: SN → TPEB 0.180 3.021** Supported
H3: PBC → TPEB 0.043 0.719 Not Supported
H4: PNE → ATT 0.364 6.403*** Supported
H5: PNE → AWE 0.446 6.980*** Supported
H6: AWE → TPEB 0.359 5.369*** Supported
H7: PNE → TPEB 0.211 3.013** Supported

Note: ***P < 0.001, **P < 0.01.

H1, H2, and H3 proposed significant positive relationships among the variables within the TPB model (i.e. ATT, SN, PBC, and TPEB) in nature-based tourism context. As shown in Table 4, ATT (β = 0.178, P<0.001) and SN (β = 0.180, P<0.01) exhibited a significantly positive effect on TPEB, while PBC (β=0.043, P>0.05) did not demonstrate a significant effect, thus supporting H1 and H2 but not supporting H3. In addition, the associations among PNE, ATT, awe, and TPEB were assessed (H4-H7). As expected, findings indicated that PNE positively affects the ATT (β=0.364, P<0.001) and the emotion of awe (β=0.446, P<0.001), supporting H4 and H5. Furthermore, the emotion of awe (β=0.359, P<0.001) and PNE (β =0.211, P<0.01) positively affects TPEB, thus supporting H6 and H7.
H8 proposed that integrating awe into the TPB model, the extended TPB model, offers superior predictive value and explanatory power for TPEB compared to the original model. As displayed in Table 5, the extended TPB model exhibited a greater predictive ability for TPEB (R2=0.430) than the original TPB model (R2=0.280). Additionally, the goodness-of-fit indicators of the extended TPB model generally outperformed those of the original TPB model. Specifically, the extended TPB model exhibited a lower χ2/df value of 1.929 and a lower RMSEA value of 0.048, compared to the original TPB model with values of 2.211 and 0.055, respectively. Therefore, the extended TPB model demonstrated superiority over the original model in explaining TPEB, thereby supporting H8.
Table 5 Results of the model comparing
Goodness-of-fit statistics & R2 χ2/df RMSEA NFI RFI IFI TLI CFI R2 for TPEB
Original TPB model 2.211 0.055 0.953 0.938 0.974 0.965 0.974 0.280
Extended TPB model 1.929 0.048 0.920 0.906 0.960 0.952 0.959 0.430
Lastly, as H9 proposed, we also compared the predictive power of awe emotion and rational predictors on TPEB. The results suggested that the predictive power of awe emotion on TPEB (0.359) was slightly higher than the combined predictive power of ATT and SN (PBC was not significant and therefore excluded) on TPEB (0.178 + 0.180 = 0.358). H9 was, therefore, supported.

5 Discussion and conclusions

The present study develops an extended TPB framework that integrates the emotion of awe into the rational-choice-based TPB model. It specifically investigates the impact of eliciting awe on TPEB in nature-based tourism. The findings can be summarized in three main points.
(1) Tourists’ perception of the natural environment in nature-based destinations can readily evoke the emotion of awe, which promotes pro-environmental actions afterwards. Prior studies have sporadically explored the antecedents and outcomes of tourists’ awe in various tourism contexts (Wang et al., 2021; Yan and Jia, 2021; Jiang et al., 2022; Yan et al., 2022). However, the research on awe has been absent from the tourism literature (Yan and Jia, 2021), and few studies have simultaneously revealed the antecedents of tourists’ awe emotion and its impact on TPEB in the nature-based tourism context. This study enriches the literature on awe in tourism by exploring the impact of eliciting awe on TPEB in nature-based tourism, while emphasizing the educational role of nature-based tourism. This finding also emphasize the nature of Burke’s sublime (Shaw, 2006) and its transformative potential (Lee, 2012), aligning with the notion that the sublime encompasses aesthetic awe (Keltner and Haidt, 2003; Clewis, 2021). Moreover, the results reveal three pathways through which the perception of the natural environment affects TPEB in nature-based tourism: two indirect pathways that stimulates TPEB by cultivating attitudes toward environmental behaviors and emotion of awe; and one direct pathway that promotes TPEB. Given that, our findings align with and expand upon the perspective put forth by Zhang et al. (2023), highlighting the educational role of nature-based tourism. It is not limited to imparting environmental knowledge and conservation strategies to tourists but also involves influencing their environmental attitudes, emotions, and behaviors.
(2) The extended TPB model outperforms the original model in explaining TPEB. Recent studies, such as Russell et al. (2017) and Chen and Huang (2022), acknowledge the impact of emotional factors on pro-environmental behaviors. In line with these findings, our study extends the TPB model by integrating the emotion of awe into the rational- choice- based TPB model. By comparing the explanatory power and predictive value of the extended TPB model with the original model in explaining TPEB, this study enhances our understanding of the intricate process of forming TPEB in nature-based tourism from the theoretical perspectives of emotion and rationality. This aligns with the results of existing research (Haj-Salem et al., 2022).
(3) The predictive power of awe emotion on TPEB slightly surpasses the combined predictive power of rational predictors in TPB model. This result confirms recent literature in the field of tourism, which identifies emotion as a stronger predictive factors of pro-environmental engagement than rational predictors (Zhao et al., 2020; Gao et al., 2021). In fact, behavior often deviates from rationality due to the influence of irrational factors. In tourism destinations, tourists find themselves in unfamiliar environments, where various situations can trigger their emotions. Therefore, it becomes challenging for tourists to adhere to their rational decision-making patterns when making behavioral choices.

6 Limitations and future research

This study recognizes several limitations that warrant future investigations. Firstly, the current research relies on self-report measures, which are susceptible to social desirability bias. Meanwhile, when measuring TPEB, our research utilizes intention instead of behavior, although intention is considered as a major antecedent of real behavior (Ajzen, 2011). In future studies, it is advisable to collect data using methods such as observation, experimental techniques, or specified neuroscience approaches that capture emotions like awe and other relevant variables. Secondly, our survey was conducted exclusively for Chinese tourists, making it necessary to replicate the study in different cultural and contextual settings to enhance the generalizability of our findings. For example, in Chinese culture, due to traditional Chinese values like Taoism, emphasizing ‘the harmonious coexistence between humans and nature’, awe inspired by the natural environment (e.g. extraordinary natural phenomena or beauty), tends to be viewed as a positive emotion (Peng et al., 2023). However, this perspective disregards the negative aspects of awe that exist across cultures and groups or are elicited by threatening stimuli (e.g. adverse weather and natural disasters). Thirdly, this study establishes an extended TPB framework that incorporates awe into the rational-oriented TPB model to investigate the influence of awe on TPEB. However, it overlooks the potential role of morality and habits in driving TPEB, as identified in previous research (Gao et al., 2021; Maclnnes et al., 2022). One path for future research should consider incorporating these variables into the extended framework and examine their relative contributions in predicting TPEB.

References

Publishing order | Descend order by publishing year | Descend order by cited within
[1]
Ajzen I. 1991. The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2): 179-211.

[2]
Ajzen I. 2011. The theory of planned behaviour: Reactions and reflections. Psychology & Health, 26(9): 1113-1127.

[3]
Ajzen I, Kruglanski A W. 2019. Reasoned action in the service of goal pursuit. Psychological Review, 126(5): 774-786.

DOI PMID

[4]
Anderson J C, Gerbing D W. 1988. Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3): 411-423.

[5]
Arcangeli M, Sperduti M, Jacquot A, et al. 2020. Awe and the experience of the sublime: A complex relationship. Frontiers in Psychology, 11: 1340. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01340.

PMID

[6]
Bartram W. 1998. Travels of William Bartram. Georgia, USA: University of Georgia Press.

[7]
Bonner E T, Friedman H L. 2011. A conceptual clarification of the experience of awe: An interpretative phenomenological analysis. The Humanistic Psychologist, 39(3): 222-235.

[8]
Brislin R W. 1970. Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1(3): 185-216.

[9]
Buda D M, d’Hauteserre A M, Johnston L. 2014. Feeling and tourism studies. Annals of Tourism Research, 46: 102-114.

[10]
Chen G, Huang X. 2022. From good feelings to good behavior: Exploring the impacts of positive emotions on tourist environmentally responsible behavior. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 50: 1-9.

[11]
Clewis R R. 2021. Why the sublime is aesthetic awe. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 79(3): 301-314.

[12]
Coghlan A, Buckley R, Weaver D. 2012. A framework for analysing awe in tourism experiences. Annals of Tourism Research, 39(3): 1710-1714.

[13]
Fornell C, Larcker D F. 1981. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1): 39-50.

[14]
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.

[15]
Gao Y, Zhao Z, Ma Y, et al. 2023. A rational-affective-moral factor model for determining tourists’ pro-environmental behavior. Current Issues in Tourism, 26(13): 2145-2163.

[16]
Gössling S. 2002. Global environmental consequences of tourism. Global Environmental Change, 12(4): 283-302.

[17]
Guo L, Li P, Zhang J, et al. 2022. Do socio-economic factors matter? A comprehensive evaluation of tourism eco-efficiency determinants in China based on the Geographical Detector Model. Journal of Environmental Management, 320: 115812. DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.115812.

[18]
Hair J F, Black W C, Babin B J, et al. 1998. Multivariate data analysis: A global perspective. Englewood Cliffs, USA: Prentice-Hall.

[19]
Haj-Salem N, Ishaq M I, Raza A. 2022. How anticipated pride and guilt influence green consumption in the Middle East: The moderating role of environmental consciousness. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 68: 103062. DOI: 10.1016/j.jretconser.2022.103062.

[20]
Halpenny E A. 2010. Pro-environmental behaviors and park visitors: The effect of place attachment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(4): 409-421.

[21]
Han H. 2015. Travelers’ pro-environmental behavior in a green lodging context: Converging value-belief-norm theory and the theory of planned behavior. Tourism Management, 47: 164-177.

[22]
Han H. 2021. Consumer behavior and environmental sustainability in tourism and hospitality: A review of theories, concepts, and latest research. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 29(7): 1021-1042.

[23]
Harrison D W. 2015. Arousal theory:Brain asymmetry and neural systems. Basel, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.

[24]
Hartig T, Mitchell R, de Vries S, et al. 2014. Nature and health. Annual Review of Public Health, 35: 207-228.

DOI PMID

[25]
Hicks J. 2018. Exploring the relationship between awe and leisure: A conceptual argument. Journal of Leisure Research, 49(3-5): 258-276.

[26]
Jiang J, Gao B W, Su X. 2022. Antecedents of tourists’ environmentally responsible behavior: The perspective of awe. Frontiers in Psychology, 13: 619815. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.619815.

[27]
Juvan E, Dolnicar S. 2014. The attitude-behaviour gap in sustainable tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 48: 76-95.

[28]
Keltner D, Haidt J. 2003. Approaching awe, a moral, spiritual, and aesthetic emotion. Cognition and Emotion, 17(2): 297-314.

[29]
Kim Y J, Njite D, Hancer M. 2013. Anticipated emotion in consumers’ intentions to select eco-friendly restaurants: Augmenting the theory of planned behavior. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 34: 255-262.

[30]
Kline R B. 2011. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd Edition.). New York, USA: Guildford Press.

[31]
Klöckner C A. 2013. A comprehensive model of the psychology of environmental behavior: A meta-analysis. Global Environmental Change, 23(5): 1028-1038.

[32]
Koenig-Lewis N, Palmer A, Dermody J, et al. 2014. Consumers’ evaluations of ecological packaging: Rational and emotional approaches. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 37: 94-105.

[33]
Larson L R, Stedman R C, Cooper C B, et al. 2015. Understanding the multi-dimensional structure of pro-environmental behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 43: 112-124.

[34]
Lee T H, Jan F H, Yang C C. 2013. Conceptualizing and measuring environmentally responsible behaviors from the perspective of community-based tourists. Tourism Management, 36: 454-468.

[35]
Lee Y. 2012. The Kantian and Hegelian sublime. Episteme, 23(1): 43-55.

[36]
Li Q C, Wu M Y. 2019. Rationality or morality? A comparative study of pro-environmental intentions of local and nonlocal visitors in nature-based destinations. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 11: 130-139.

[37]
Liu P, Segovia M, Tse E C Y, et al. 2022. Become an environmentally responsible customer by choosing low-carbon footprint products at restaurants: Integrating the elaboration likelihood model (ELM) and the theory of planned behavior (TPB). Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 52: 346-355.

[38]
Lou S, Zhang X, Zhang D. 2022. What influences urban residents’ intention to sort waste? Introducing Taoist cultural values into TPB. Journal of Cleaner Production, 371: 133540. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.133540.

[39]
Lu D, Liu Y, Lai I, et al. 2017. Awe: An important emotional experience in sustainable tourism. Sustainability, 9(12): 2189. DOI: 10.3390/su9122189.

[40]
Maclnnes S, Grün B, Dolnicar S. 2022. Habit drives sustainable tourist behavior. Annals of Tourism Research, 92: 103329. DOI: 10.1016/j.annals.2021.103329.

[41]
Mehrabian A, Russell J A. 1974. An approach to environmental psychology. Cambridge, USA: MIT press.

[42]
Niu J, Liu J. 2022. Tourists’ environmentally responsible behavior intentions based on embodied perceptions: The arousal of awe and anticipated self-conscious emotions. Tourism Tribune, 37(5): 80-95. (in Chinese)

[43]
Ouyang Z, Cheng P, Liu Y, et al. 2019. Institutional drivers for corporate philanthropic activities in China: Mediating roles of top management participation. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 27(1): 244-255.

[44]
Pearce J, Strickland-Munro J, Moore S A. 2017. What fosters awe-inspiring experiences in nature-based tourism destinations? Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 25(3): 362-378.

[45]
Peng H, Li C, Zhong S, et al. 2023. Literature review on human-nature relationships: Nature contact, nature connectedness and nature benefits. Geographical Research, 42(4): 1101-1116. (in Chinese)

[46]
Peng H, Zhang J, Lu L, et al. 2017. Eco-efficiency and its determinants at a tourism destination: A case study of Huangshan National Park, China. Tourism Management, 60: 201-211.

[47]
Picard D. 2012. Tourism, awe and inner journeys. In: Picard D, Robinson M (eds.). Emotion in motion: Tourism, affect and transformation. London, UK: Ashgate: 1-20.

[48]
Podsakoff P M, MacKenzie S B, Lee J Y, et al. 2003. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5): 879-903.

[49]
Powell R B, Brownlee M T, Kellert S R, et al. 2012. From awe to satisfaction: Immediate affective responses to the Antarctic tourism experience. Polar Record, 48(245): 145-156.

[50]
Rivis A, Sheeran P, Armitage C J. 2009. Expanding the affective and normative components of the theory of planned behavior: A meta-analysis of anticipated affect and moral norms. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 39(12): 2985-3019.

[51]
Russell S V, Young C W, Unsworth K L, et al. 2017. Bringing habits and emotions into food waste behavior. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 125: 107-114.

[52]
Shaw P. 2006. The sublime: The new critical idiom. Abingdon, USA: Routledge.

[53]
Shiota M N, Keltner D, Mossman A. 2007. The nature of awe: Elicitors, appraisals, and effects on self-concept. Cognition and Emotion, 21(5): 944-963.

[54]
Stine R A. 1995. Graphical interpretation of variance inflation factors. The American Statistician, 49(1): 53-56.

[55]
Tuan Y F. 1974. Topophilia:A study of environmental perception, attitudes, and values. Upper Saddle River, USA: Prentice-Hall Inc.

[56]
Ulker-Demirel E, Ciftci G. 2020. A systematic literature review of the theory of planned behavior in tourism, leisure and hospitality management research. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 43: 209-219.

[57]
Wang C, Zhang J, Cao J, et al. 2019. The influence of environmental background on tourists’ environmentally responsible behaviour. Journal of Environmental Management, 231: 804-810.

[58]
Wang C, Zhang J, Yu P, et al. 2018. The theory of planned behavior as a model for understanding tourists’ responsible environmental behaviors: The moderating role of environmental interpretations. Journal of Cleaner Production, 194: 425-434.

[59]
Wang E, Shen C, Zheng J, et al. 2021. The antecedents and consequences of awe in dark tourism. Current Issues in Tourism, 24(8): 1169-1183.

[60]
Wang L, Lyu J. 2019. Inspiring awe through tourism and its consequence. Annals of Tourism Research, 77: 106-116.

DOI

[61]
Wang X, Qin X, Zhou Y. 2020. A comparative study of relative roles and sequences of cognitive and affective attitudes on tourists’ pro-environmental behavioral intention. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 28(5): 727-746.

[62]
Xie T, Xu A. 2024. Exploring the norm-activation model-based mechanisms influencing the willingness of environmentally friendly behavior of backpackers. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 15(3): 650-662.

DOI

[63]
Xu H, Zhu D, Bao J. 2016. Sustainability and nature-based mass tourism: Lessons from China’s approach to the Huangshan Scenic Park. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 24(2): 182-202.

[64]
Yaden D B, Kaufman S B, Hyde E, et al. 2019. The development of the Awe Experience Scale (AWE-S): A multifactorial measure for a complex emotion. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 14(4): 474-488.

[65]
Yan A, Jia W. 2021. The influence of eliciting awe on pro-environmental behavior of tourist in religious tourism. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 48: 55-65.

[66]
Yan Y Q, Shen H J, Ye B H, et al. 2022. From axe to awe: Assessing the co-effects of awe and authenticity on industrial heritage tourism. Current Issues in Tourism, 25(17): 2821-2837.

[67]
Yang Z, Dong Y, Zhao C, et al. 2024. The generation path and influencing factors of pro-environmental behavior based on motivation-oriented mechanism: Taking camping tourism as an example. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 15(3): 663-672.

[68]
Zelenski J M, Desrochers J E. 2021. Can positive and self-transcendent emotions promote pro-environmental behavior? Current Opinion in Psychology, 42: 31-35.

DOI PMID

[69]
Zeng Y, Zhong L. 2017. Impact of tourist environmental awareness on environmental friendly behaviors: A case study from Qinghai Lake, China. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 8(5): 502-513.

DOI

[70]
Zhang H, Zhang X, Yang Y, et al. 2023. From nature experience to visitors’ pro-environmental behavior: The role of perceived restorativeness and well-being. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 32(1): 1-22.

[71]
Zhao X, Wang X, Ji L. 2020. Evaluating the effect of anticipated emotion on forming environmentally responsible behavior in heritage tourism: Developing an extended model of norm activation theory. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 25(11): 1185-1198.

Options
Outlines

/

〈 〉