Pro-environmental Behaviour of Tourists in Uzbekistan: Application of Protection Motivation Theory

2.2.7 Response Efficacy
Response efficacy relates to the efficacy of the protective actions or measures to reduce or avoid existing risks: will engaging in protective action actually reduce the risks? Response efficacy is the perceived effectiveness of pro-environmental behaviors. Response efficacy would refer to the extent to which a person believes that environmental problems will be reduced or avoided if one engages in the adaptive pro-environmental action. (Bockarjova and Steg, 2014). For example, farmers have adopted various behaviors to reduce water pollution, but they cannot directly mitigate such pollution. It is therefore inefficient for them to exert effort and spend time to engage in PEB. Thus, perceived effectiveness (i.e., response efficacy) affects an individual's intention to perform PEB. Zhao et al. (2016) found that the environmental behavior of farmers was highly susceptible to cost because they typically lacked necessary materials and had few monetary resources.

2.2.8 Costs

Perceived costs represent all perceived costs connected to protective measures or actions, including monetary costs as well as non-monetary costs such as effort, time or inconvenience. Thus in the coping appraisal stage, one weights the perceived ability to avoid or decrease risks against the perceived costs of protective action. In this context, response costs would refer to the expected individual costs of engaging in pro-environmental actions (the adaptive behavior), both monetary and non-monetary. (Bockarjova and Steg, 2014).

This study examines the extent to which individuals’ pro-environmental behaviours are predicted by PMT-based predictors (severity, susceptibility, rewards, response efficacy, and self-efficacy). The authors propose that higher costs would expectedly negatively influence pro-environmental behavior, while high perceived self-efficacy and response efficacy should promote adaptive action.

Based on theoretical and empirical backgrounds, the following hypotheses are proposed:
Hypothesis 1. Perceived severity is positively related to the pro-environmental behaviour of tourists
Hypothesis 2. Perceived vulnerability is positively related to the pro-environmental behaviour of tourists.
Hypothesis 3. Perceived rewards are negatively related to the pro-environmental behaviour of tourists.
Hypothesis 4. Self-efficacy is positively related to the pro-environmental behaviour of tourists
Hypothesis 5. Response-efficacy is positively related to the pro-environmental behaviour of tourists.
Hypothesis 6. Costs are negatively related to the pro-environmental behaviour of tourists.