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

Frequency
Percentile
Gender
Male	141	45.5
Female	169	54.5
Marital Status
Single	169	54.5
Married	141	45.5
Age
18 and 19	58	18.7
20-29	164	52.9
30-39	33	10.6
40-49	19	6.1
50-59	36	11.6
Education level
College Diploma	36	11.6
Less than High School	52	16.8
Postgraduate and above	68	21.9
Undergraduate	154	49.7
Employment Status
Employed	131	42.3
Other	34	11.0
Retiree	7	2.3
Self-employed	31	10.0
Student	107	34.5
Residency
Rural	80	25.8
Urban	197	63.5
Suburban	33	10.6
Membership Status
No	246	79.4
Yes	64	20.6

Table 1. Descriptive information of the sample tourists
The mean value of items in measured variables
Table 2 indicates the mean and standard deviation of the items used in this research. The mean values of all the items of the pro-environmental behavior are higher than the average with attention to the range 1-5 meaning the respondents had a good pro-environmental behavior. Among all the items, the second item related to energy saving has the highest level of mean value (4.24, SD=.90), whereas the item ‘I do not use disposable tableware’ has the lowest mean score (3.67, SD=1.14). All the items in the next variable (Perceived Severity) are also higher than the average with the highest score in ‘Environmental pollution has become a serious threat for humankind’ (4.37, SD=.94) and the lowest mean score in ‘The thought of climate change scares me’ (4.25, SD=.92). Vulnerability items also have a slightly higher score than the average. ‘Environmental pollution can negatively affect me’ has higher mean score (4.16, SD=1.03) than the other two items which have the same mean score (3.78, SD=1.03, SD=1.01). All the three items measuring Rewards have lower mean values than the average. Among the items, ‘Continuing to do things according to my previous standard of living (1.90, SD=.88) has the highest mean score while ‘Devoting time to do personal activities is easier for me than doing pro-environmental activities’ (1.85, SD=.82).
According to the table, the items used to measure self-efficacy have higher mean values than the average. ‘Whatever happens in terms of the environment, I will be able to handle it’ has the highest score of all (3.97, SD= .96), whereas ‘I don’t worry much about difficulties which may arise as a result of global environmental problems because I trust in my ability to cope with them’ has the lowest mean value of 3.79, SD=.95. Response efficacy has higher means that the average having the highest mean in the item ‘My contribution to environmental programs certainly has a positive impact on creating the interest and participation of others’ (4.55, SD=.62), and the lowest mean in ‘Having environmental ethics contributes to reducing environmental risks’(4.32, SD=.64). Lastly, the items for measuring the variable Response costs all have low mean values with the highest score in ‘It’s hard for me to comply with environmental protection policies’ (1.54, SD=.54). ‘Taking steps to reduce environmental problems costs too much money’ has the lowest mean score (1.48, SD=.52).
Table 2 The mean value of items in measured variables