1
Completely disagree
|
2
Disagree
|
3
Unsure
|
4
Agree
|
5
Completely Agree
|
Mean
(Standard deviation)
|
So far, I have been involved in environmental programs..
|
12
(3,9%)
|
36
(11.6%)
|
53
(17.1%)
|
114
(36.8%)
|
95
(30.6%)
|
3.79
(1.12)
|
I try to save energy
|
5
(1.6%)
|
10
(3.2%)
|
37
(11.9%)
|
112
(36.1%)
|
146
(47.1%)
|
4.24
(.900)
|
I am involved in increasing environmental information..
|
10
(3.2%)
|
20
(6.5%)
|
78
(25.2%)
|
118
(38.1%)
|
84
(27.1%)
|
3.79
(1.02)
|
I do not use disposable tableware
|
14
(4.5%)
|
33
(10.6%)
|
84
(27.1%)
|
89
(28.7%)
|
90
(29.0%)
|
3.67
(1.14)
|
I use waste paper
|
15
(4.8%)
|
31
(10%)
|
78
(25.2%)
|
98
(31.6%)
|
88
(28.4%)
|
3.69
(1.13)
|
Environmental pollution has become a serious threat..
|
4
(1.3%)
|
16
(5.2%)
|
27
(8.7%)
|
76
(24.5%)
|
187
(60.3%)
|
4.37
(.94)
|
Negative impact of natural resources depletion are severe
|
4
(1.3)
|
10
(3.2)
|
35
(11.3)
|
96
(31%)
|
165
(53.2%)
|
4.32
(.89)
|
The thought of climate change scares me
|
6
(1.9%)
|
11
(3.5%)
|
34
(11%)
|
108
(34.8%)
|
151
(48.7%)
|
4.25
(.92)
|
Environmental pollution negatively affects me
|
11
(3.5%)
|
14
(4.5%)
|
34
(11%)
|
107
(34.5%)
|
144
(46.5%)
|
4.16
(1.03)
|
I will experience negative effects of environmental degradation..
|
4
(1.3%)
|
10
(3.2%)
|
35
(11.3%)
|
96
(31%)
|
165
(53.2%)
|
3.78
(1.03)
|
I am vulnerable to the negative effects of climate change
|
7
(2.3%)
|
26
(8.4%)
|
80
(25.8%)
|
112
(36.1%)
|
85
(27.4%)
|
3.78
(1.01)
|
Devoting time to do personal activities is easier..
|
116
(37.4%)
|
136
(43.9%)
|
46
(14.8%)
|
11
(3.5%)
|
1
(.3%)
|
1.85
(.82)
|
Using a private vehicle is more comfortable than public transports..
|
107
(34.5%)
|
152
(49%)
|
41
(13.2%)
|
8
(2.6%)
|
2
(.6%)
|
1.86
(.79)
|
Continuing to do things according to my previous standard of living is more profitable..
|
122
(39.4%)
|
109
(35.2%)
|
66
(21.3%)
|
13
(4.2%)
|
0
|
1.90
(.88)
|
I know how to take precautions to protect environment in everyday life
|
8
(2.6%)
|
20
(6.5%)
|
64
(20.6%)
|
130
(41.9%)
|
88
(28.4%)
|
3.87
(.98)
|
I can handle environmental problems, If I make an effort
|
9
(2.9%)
|
10
(3.2%)
|
62
(20%)
|
151
(48.7%)
|
78
(25.2%)
|
3.90
(.91)
|
Whatever happens in terms of the environment, I will be able to handle it
|
5
(1.6%)
|
10
(3.2%)
|
86
(27.7%)
|
97
(31.3%)
|
112
(36.1%)
|
3.97
(.96)
|
I don’t worry much about difficulties, which may arise as a result of global environmental..
|
7
(2.3%)
|
15
(4.8%)
|
91
(29.4%)
|
120
(38.7%)
|
77
(24.8%)
|
3.79
(.95)
|
Having environmental ethics helps to reduce environmental risks
|
2
(.6%)
|
4
(1.3%)
|
17
(5.5%)
|
165
(53.2%)
|
124
(40%)
|
4.32
(.64)
|
My contribution to environmental programs has positive impact..
|
1
(.3%)
|
2
(.6%)
|
16
(5.2%)
|
100
(32.3%)
|
192
(61.9%)
|
4.55
(.62)
|
If I increase my attention to the environment, I can reduce likelihood of environmental degradation..
|
1
(.3%)
|
3
(1%)
|
26
(8.4%)
|
148
(47.7%)
|
133
(42.9%)
|
4.33
(.67)
|
Taking steps to reduce environmental problems costs too much money
|
165
(53.2%)
|
142
(45.8%)
|
3
(1%)
|
1
(.3%)
|
2
(.6%)
|
1.48
(.52)
|
Participation in environmental program is time consuming for me
|
162
(52.3%)
|
147
(47.4%)
|
1
(.3%)
|
2
(.6%)
|
1
(.3%)
|
1.48
(.51)
|
It’s hard for me to comply with environmental protection policies
|
151
(48.7%)
|
152
(49%)
|
7
(2.3)
|
2
(.6%)
|
1
(.3%)
|
1.54
(.54)
|
Correlation analysis
Correlation analysis was conducted to examine the associations between two variables measured by a Likert scale, and the results are presented in Table 3. While there was no strong correlation between variables, the dependent variable (i.e. Pro-environmental behavior of tourists) was significantly affected by self-efficacy (r=0.460, p<.001), followed by severity (r=0.454, p<.001), vulnerability (r=0.410, p<001) and response-efficacy (r=0.332, p<001).
Of all the factors that could affect behaviours of tourists, self-efficacy and perceived severity were most strongly related to pro-environmental behavior, while vulnerability and response-efficacy were weakly related. Rewards (r=-.037, p=0.517) and perceived cost (r=-.074, p= 0.191) were not associated with the dependent variable.
|
Mean
(SD)
|
PEB
|
Sev
|
Vulner
|
Rew
|
SelfEff
|
RespEff
|
Cost
|
PEB
|
3.83
(.74)
|
1
|
.454***
|
.410***
|
-.037
|
.460***
|
.332***
|
-.074
|
Sev
|
4.31
(.77)
|
|
1
|
.510***
|
-.024
|
.307***
|
.319***
|
-.015
|
Vulner
|
3.90
(.84)
|
|
|
1
|
-.089
|
.418***
|
.367***
|
-.107
|
Rewards
|
1.87
(.62)
|
|
|
|
1
|
-.043
|
-.138*
|
.014
|
SelfEff
|
3.88
(.73)
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
.356***
|
-.043
|
RespEff
|
4.40
(.47)
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
-.069
|
Cost
|
1.49
(.39)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
***<.001
OLS Regression results
In order to further verify the results and provide a more comprehensive testing, Ordinary Least Square regression (OLS regression) was employed to analyse how the independent variables namely Environmental Attitude, Perceived Severity, Perceived Vulnerability, Rewards, Self-efficacy, Response-efficacy and Response Cost overall predict the outcome of the dependent variable which is Pro-environmental Behaviour of tourists.
Regression is a statistical technique that can be used to analyse the relationship between a single dependent variable and several independent variables. The objective of OLS regression analysis is to estimate coefficients of linear regression equations which describe the relationship between one or more independent quantitative variables and a dependent variable.
The OLS regression was calculated to predict pro-environmental behavior of tourists based on perceived severity, vulnerability, rewards, self-efficacy, response-efficacy and cost. The result of OLS regression analysis of base model without adding control variables was statistically significant, F(6, 303)=26,069, p<0.001, with an R² of .340, indicating that these independent variables explained 34% of the variance (see Table 4).
For the independent variables, the results of the analysis revealed that perceived severity and self-efficacy were significantly and positively related to the pro-environmental behavior of tourists. Self-efficacy (ß=0.295, p<0.001) was the most influential independent variable, followed by perceived severity (ß=0.278, p<0.001). However, other variables, vulnerability, rewards, response-efficacy, cost were not significantly related to the dependent variable.
|
Unstandardized coefficient
B SE
|
Standardized Coefficient
ß
|
Collinearity statistics
Tolerance VIF
|
Severity
|
.267***
|
.053
|
.278***
|
.711
|
1.406
|
Vulnerability
|
.092
|
.051
|
.105
|
.635
|
1.574
|
Rewards
|
.007
|
.056
|
.006
|
.977
|
1.024
|
Self-efficacy
|
.298***
|
.054
|
.295***
|
.772
|
1.295
|
Response-efficacy
|
.153
|
.082
|
.098
|
.787
|
1.271
|
Cost
|
-.075
|
.090
|
-.040
|
.985
|
1.015
|
R² .340
Durbin Watson ª
F 26.069***
|
Then, in order to check the robustness of the analysis results, the OLS regression analysis was conducted with control variables. The Durbin-Watson statistic was used to test residuals, and statistics were computed using weighted data. The statistical analyses were performed using SPSS 26.0.
According to the table, there were several changes in the results with control variables. Severity (ß=0.304, p<0.001) was significantly and positively related to the dependent variable and it was the most influential variable followed by self-efficacy (ß=0.279, p<0.001). Among the control variables, only Gender and Residency were significantly related to the dependent variable. Gender (=female) positively related to pro-environmental behaviour (ß=0.104, p<0.5) and Residency (=urban) is related positively as well (ß=0.180, p<0.1).
|
Unstandardized coefficient
B SE
|
Standardized coefficient
ß
|
Collinearity statistics
Tolerance VIF
|
Severity
|
.291***
|
.053
|
.304***
|
.685
|
1.460
|
Vulnerability
|
.091
|
.052
|
.105
|
.602
|
1.662
|
Rewards
|
.021
|
.056
|
.017
|
.953
|
1.049
|
Self-efficacy
|
.282***
|
.053
|
.279***
|
.757
|
1.322
|
Response-efficacy
|
.158
|
.084
|
.102
|
.731
|
1.368
|
Cost
|
-.040
|
.089
|
-.021
|
.963
|
1.038
|
Age
|
.015
|
.032
|
.025
|
.799
|
1.251
|
Marital status
|
-.096
|
.074
|
-.065
|
.843
|
1.187
|
Employment status(employee)
|
.010
|
.093
|
.007
|
.546
|
1.832
|
Employment status(student)
|
.055
|
.093
|
.035
|
.591
|
1.693
|
Educational level
|
.055
|
.093
|
.035
|
.591
|
1.693
|
Gender (female)
|
.155***
|
.069
|
.104*
|
.964
|
1.037
|
Residency (urban)
|
.276***
|
.113
|
.180**
|
.387
|
2.586
|
Residency(rural)
|
-.127
|
.127
|
-.075
|
.372
|
2.691
|
Membership
|
.146
|
.086
|
.080
|
.956
|
1.046
|
***<0.001, **<0.01, *<0.5
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: |
