Next Article in Journal
Reputational Risk Associated with Big Data Research and Development: An Interdisciplinary Perspective
Previous Article in Journal
Toward a More Complete Picture of Readmission-Decreasing Initiatives
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 13
Issue 16
10.3390/su13169273
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Wildlife Conservation through Economically Responsible Ecotourist: The Mediator Roles of Attitude between Anticipated Emotion and Intention to Stay in Local Homestays

by
Hayati Ibrahim
1,2,
Manohar Mariapan
1,*,
Evelyn Lim Ai Lin
1 and
Sheena Bidin
1
1
Faculty Forestry and Environment, University Putra Malaysia, Seri Kembangan 43400, Malaysia
2
Department of Tourism and Hospitality, Polytechnic Sultan Idris Shah, Sungai Ayer Tawar 45100, Malaysia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2021, 13(16), 9273; https://doi.org/10.3390/su13169273
Submission received: 16 July 2021 / Revised: 12 August 2021 / Accepted: 12 August 2021 / Published: 18 August 2021
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
If responsible ecotourists stay in a local homestay, this will benefit local people economically and lead to improved wildlife conservation. This study aims to examine the mediator roles of attitudes between anticipated emotion and intention. It was conducted in Penang National Park, Malaysia, and a stratified sampling method was used for collecting the data. In all, 320 sets of questionnaires were analysed using the SPSS Amos 24.0 Statistical Software Package to test the Structural Equation Modelling. The findings show that economically responsible ecotourist attitudes to staying in local homestays for wildlife conservation partially mediate the relationship between anticipated emotion and intention to stay in a local homestay for wildlife conservation. This study suggests that players in the ecotourism industry should incorporate emotional elements in their marketing strategies to promote local homestays to responsible ecotourists, which would benefit local economies.

1. Introduction

According to a 2020 World Wildlife Fund (WWF) report [1], wildlife populations have declined by 68% since 1970 due to their over-consumption by poor local people living in or near national parks. According to Duffy, St John, Büscher and Brockington [2], poverty is the main reason for illegal wildlife hunting by locals, who then sell the hunted wildlife at high prices as a source of income. CITES, the Convention of International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, reports that international wildlife trade is estimated to be worth billions of dollars per year, affecting hundreds of millions of animal and plant specimens [3,4]. It is important to alleviate poverty among local people to save wildlife. Increased incomes will reduce the local dependence on wildlife. Ecotourism is defined by the International Ecotourism Society (TIES) as “responsible travel to natural settings that conserves the environment and enhances the well-being of local people” [5]. TIES is an example of a non-profit organisation devoted to aiding businesses by implementing ecotourism practices and fostering long-term community development. Poverty is the main cause of illegal wildlife hunting among local communities, causing widespread wildlife extinction, so ecotourist groups have introduced local ecotourism plans [6,7] to develop the local economy to eliminate the local over-dependence on wildlife. Through local ecotourism, communities have been given opportunities to run homestay businesses to obtain economic benefits from the resulting profits [8]. Many homestays have been established by locals in or near national parks to provide accommodation facilities and experiences to ecotourists [9]. However, it was found that tourists prefer [8] to stay in hotels or resorts located in cities [10,11] rather than choosing local homestays as their holiday accommodation [12,13,14,15]. As a result, local homestay businesses are unprofitable and this sector is stagnant [16,17]. Staying in a local homestay for wildlife conservation is deemed as responsible behaviour in this study. Ecotourists are those who travel in a natural area and spend a predetermined number of days developing the local economy [18,19]. They are responsible people who care about maintaining and protecting the natural environment [20,21]. Ecotourists display responsible economic behaviour as they are willing to do everything that others expect them to do, even when confronted with challenging situations [22]. They will stay in a local homestay for the purposes of wildlife conservation. However, to what extent do they intend to stay in local homestays for wildlife conservation during their visits to a national park? To answer this question, it is vital to understand ecotourists’ responsible economic behaviour in relation to wildlife conservation so an effective marketing strategy for staying in local homestays can be implemented. As tourists and wildlife have a strong emotional connection, the present research study focuses on the relationship between anticipated emotion, attitude and intention.

2. Literature Review and Research Hypotheses

Ecotourism is an economic tool for wildlife conservation [23,24]. Previous studies involving wildlife conservation through ecotourism highlighted conservation learning that focused on captive wildlife, such as in zoos or aquariums [25,26,27,28], and conservation interpretation [29,30,31,32,33,34]. According to Myers [35], tourists are agents in wildlife conservation. They are responsible people who care about maintaining and protecting wildlife [20,21]. Responsible behaviour is the act of doing what should be done in any given situation, even if it is difficult, unpleasant or unclear [36]. There are three main types of responsible behaviour, namely environmentally responsible behaviour, socially responsible behaviour and economically responsible behaviour [37]. However, scholars of tourist responsible behavioural research tend to study environmentally responsible behaviour [38,39,40] and socially responsible behaviour [41,42]. For example, Xu, Kim, Liang and Ryu [43] conducted a case study of Nansha Wetland Park in China to examine the links between tourist involvement, experience and environmentally responsible behaviour. He, Hu, Swanson, Su and Chen [44] conducted a study of tourists’ environmentally responsible tourism behaviour and perceptions of destinations and quality. Su and Swanson [41] analysed the effect of destination social responsibility on tourist behaviour. Luo, Tang, Jiang and Su [42] investigated socially responsible tourists’ awareness of environmentally responsible behaviour. In tourism economics research, studies have proven that tourists are willing to pay for wildlife conservation [45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52]; however, no studies have been undertaken on tourists’ economically responsible behaviour. In the present research, ecotourists staying in local homestays for wildlife conservation is referred to as responsible economic behaviour.
The Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) was developed by Ajzen in 1991 for studying the human decision-making process [53] and it is widely used in conservation behavioural research [54,55,56,57,58,59]. It consists of three important components, namely attitude, subjective norm and perceived behavioural control, which are used as important determinants in understanding human behaviours [53]. In psychological terms, attitude refers to a person’s mental and emotional state [60]. It can enable a better understanding of how humans perceive the world and how they behave [61]. It involves an overall evaluation of attitude objects, e.g., favour or disfavour, or like or dislike [62,63]. In wildlife value orientation [64], a beneficial interaction between humans and wildlife exists when humans have a positive attitude towards wildlife conservation [65,66]. Previous studies indicate that local communities [67,68,69,70], stakeholders [71,72,73,74,75] and teachers [76] have positive attitudes towards wildlife conservation. However, ecotourist attitudes towards wildlife conservation remain unclear. According to Newhouse [77], ecotourist attitudes have major implications for wildlife conservation. Based on Ajzen [53] in the TPB, attitudes are antecedents of intention. Intention is the individual willingness to undertake a particular behaviour, so it has a direct relationship with behaviour [53]. The TPB explains that the more an attitude relates to a behaviour, the greater the intention to perform the behaviour [53]. In tourism research, several studies have confirmed that ecotourist attitudes have a direct effect on intention, as shown by research conducted by Clark Mulgrew, Kannis–Dymand, Schaffer and Hoberg [78]; Phu, Hai, Yen and Son [79]; Meng and Choi [80]; and Gstaettner, Rodger and Lee [81]. Based on the arguments above, the present study proposed the first research hypothesis as follows:
Hypothesis 1 (H1).
Attitude to staying in a local homestay for wildlife conservation has a significant direct effect on intention to stay at a local homestay for wildlife conservation.
The importance of emotions in the decision-making process is often overlooked by scholars because they believe rational thinking is more meaningful. They regard emotions as irrational phenomena that can lead to incorrect thinking. However, current ideas emphasise the significance of emotions in decision making. Loewenstein and Lerner [82] distinguish between two sorts of emotions encountered during decision-making: anticipated emotions and immediate emotions. Emotions that are anticipated (or predicted) are not experienced immediately, but are anticipated as a result of the rewards or losses arising from a decision. The two effects that exist in anticipated emotion are self-consistency (e.g., pride and guilt) and basic hedonic (e.g., pleasure and frustration). Self-consistency shows a long-term emotional effect while basic hedonic is more short-term [83]. Bagozzi, Belanche, Casaló and Flavián [84] mentioned that anticipated emotion plays an important role in purchasing decision making. Emotion is widely used by major companies and organisations in marketing strategies to influence buyers’ emotions by placing emotional taglines in their marketing adverts. Some examples are the ‘Choose Happiness’ tagline, used in Coca Cola ads; the ‘Stop Climate Changes Before It Changes You’ tagline by the World Wildlife Fund, which adds the element of fear; the ‘30+ Years’ Experience Successfully Representing Accident Victims’ tagline by John Rapillo, a law office that uses the element of trust; the ‘Help Me Read This’ tagline by Children Of The World, which features a sad element; or ‘You’re Not You When You’re Hungry’ for the Snickers bar (Mars), which uses an element of humour by displaying an awesome picture of Godzilla, except when he is hungry. Surprisingly, adverts that include emotional elements are generally successful in influencing users/customers to buy products or services. In tourism research, studies also show that tourists have a strong emotional connection with wildlife through their wildlife view experience [85,86,87]. This research assesses how tourists’ anticipated emotions in relation to wildlife affect their decisions to stay in local homestays for wildlife conservation. In the TPB, scholars tend to relate environmental research to norms [88,89,90,91,92]. However, in their study, Onwezen, Antonides and Bartels [93] suggest that exploring anticipated emotion in environmental research is critical. Moreover, a meta-analysis conducted by Rivis, Sheeran, and Armitage [94] mentioned that anticipated emotion can increase the variance in explaining attitude and intention in the TPB. In TPB research, previous studies by Kim, Njite and Hancer [95] and Londono, Davies and Elms [96] have shown that anticipated emotion has a significant direct effect on attitudes to behaviour and intention. Based on the arguments above, the present study proposed further research hypotheses as follows:
Hypothesis 2 (H2).
Anticipated emotion has a significant direct effect on attitude to staying in a local homestay for wildlife conservation.
Hypothesis 3 (H3).
Anticipated emotion has a significant direct effect on intention to stay in a local homestay for wildlife conservation.
Mediation analyses are often used in social psychology [97] to investigate the underlying mechanism or process by which one variable influences another via a mediator variable in order to better understand a known relationship. When no evident direct relationship exists between an independent variable and a dependent variable, mediation analysis might enable a better understanding of the relationship [98]. In tourism behavioural research, attitude has been identified as functioning in a mediator role [99]. Studies by Rahman, Rana, Hoque and Rahman [100] showed that tourists’ attitude has the effect of mediating between service and satisfaction. Mehmood, Liang and Gu [101] determined that attitudes mediate the relationship between user-generated content and travel intentions. Studies conducted by Gilchrist, Masser, Horsley and Ditto [102]; and Taylor, Ishida and Donovan [103], indicate that attitude mediates the relationship between anticipated emotion and intention. The proposed research framework, illustrating the relationship between attitude, anticipated emotion and intention, is shown in Figure 1. Based on the arguments above, the present study proposed a further research hypothesis as follows:
Hypothesis 4 (H4).
Attitude to staying at a local homestay for wildlife conservation mediates the relationship between anticipated emotion and intention to stay at a local homestay for wildlife conservation.

3. Research Methodology

3.1. Target Area

In terms of richness of biodiversity, Malaysia is one of the top 17 countries, with an estimated 12,500 plant species, 306 mammal species, 742 bird species and 547 reptile species [104]. As a protected area gazetted under Malaysia National Parks [105], Penang National Park (PNP) functions to protect and conserve wildlife. PNP is home to 417 species of flora and 143 species of fauna, including numerous rare and endangered species. It is located at 5°26′53″ N 100°11′36″ E in Peninsular Malaysia and has an area of 2563 hectares (9.9 sq mi). In this study, PNP was selected as the target area to conduct the research, as it is a developed eco-tourism area that receives high numbers of domestic and foreign tourists. Among the tourism activities at PNP are visiting the interpretation centre, camping at Keranchut Beach and Teluk Kampi; wildlife observation, e.g., squirrels, beavers, moles, ants and pythons; and various bird species such as eagles; walking at the Canopy Bridge; doing water activities; picnicking; fishing; jungle trekking; mountain climbing; and visiting the lighthouse, the Turtle Conservation Centre and Lake Meromiktik. As with national parks in other countries, PNP also faces its own challenges in reviving the local community economy for wildlife conservation [106,107]. Figure 2 depicts a map of Penang National Park, the study area for this research.

3.2. Method

In this study, the non-experimental quantitative research method was used [108]. Although this method appears highly flexible, the results obtained through the quantitative research procedure are extremely reliable because data is collected, processed and presented in numbers, which are not deceptive. Moreover, in non-experimental research, a predictor variable or subjects cannot be manipulated, proving that this method is highly systematic. Non-experimental quantitative research is often used because it allows researchers to gain a better understanding of social science through questionnaires, polls and survey data analysis. Where the data is easily communicated using statistics and figures, this method is performed to study the relationships between variables in an existing phenomenon [109].

3.3. Sampling

Tourists formed the sample in this study, and they were selected using the stratified sampling method [110]. Initially, tourists who came to Penang National Park were asked whether they had checked in to local accommodation or were staying overnight during their visit to Penang National Park. Only tourists who had checked in to local accommodation or were staying overnight were selected for the sample in this study. Secondly, only a tourist who agreed to be a respondent received a set of questionnaires from the research team. The data collection was conducted carefully face to face with tourists in Penang National Park and they were given a token of appreciation after the questionnaire had been completed. A summary of the sample background is shown in Table 1.
Table 1 shows that tourists aged 18 to 23 years old formed the largest group of respondents, 39.7% of the total, followed by respondents aged from 24 to 29 (22.5%) and 30 to 35 (18.8%). However, the smallest group was tourists aged above 41, which was only 4.4% of the total. Table 1 also shows that females comprised the largest group of respondents in terms of gender, with a total of 58.1%, while the rest were male. Respondents from the Malaysian group were found to be the largest in terms of nationality, with 82.2% of the total; the rest were from the non-Malaysian group. The table shows that tourists with employed status were the largest group of respondents in this field, at 71.6%, while the smallest group comprised pensioners, with 1.6% of the total. Tourists visiting for leisure comprised the largest group of respondents in terms of the purpose of visiting, with 74.1% of the total; followed by the ‘other purposes’ group, with 16.9%; and business purposes, with 9.1% of the total.

3.4. Measurement

Since this study aimed to predict tourist intention to stay in a local homestay for wildlife conservation, the survey method was deemed to be the most suitable. The most appropriate instrument used to survey tourist intentions is a questionnaire form [111]. The questionnaire consisted of two parts. The first part related to the tourist background, and respondents were required to answer questions regarding their age, gender, nationality, working status and their purpose of visiting PNP. The second part of the questionnaire contained three measurements, namely anticipated emotion (four items), attitude (four items) and intention (three items). All the items were measured using a five-point Likert-type scale, from 5-strongly agree to 1-strongly disagree. All items were adapted from the literature research. The items used to measure anticipated emotion were based on Bagozzi et al. [84], such as ‘If I visit Penang National Park next time, it would be a real pleasure if I stay at a local homestay that contributes to wildlife conservation’. The items used to measure attitude and intention were based on Ajzen [112], such as ‘I would like very much to stay at a local homestay if this contributes to wildlife conservation in Penang National Park’ and ‘I intend to stay at a local homestay when visiting Penang National Park this year for wildlife conservation’. Appendix A shows the items used in the questionnaire. Two steps were involved in conducting this research. The first step was the pilot study. At this stage, 80 tourists had been selected as respondents. The internal consistency shows that the questionnaire had very high reliability, with Cronbach’s Alpha values between 0.89 and 0.94. The questionnaire had also gone through the validation process before the pilot study was conducted. The questionnaire had been checked by the supervisors to determine whether the items would achieve the appropriate measurement of the constructs. The second step in this research process was conducting the actual research. The data collection process took place over four weeks from 19 December 2020 to 10 January 2021and was conducted during the weekend. Since 20 sets were not answered completely by the respondents, only 320 sets of questionnaires were used for data analysis out of the 340 set questionnaires that had been returned to the research team.

4. Data Analysis and Results

4.1. Measurement Modelling

In this study, the data was analysed using the SPSS Amos 24.0 Statistical Software Package to test the Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) [113]. SEM is widely used in social science research [114] because it provides a flexible framework for constructing and analysing complicated interactions across different variables, allowing researchers to verify the validity of a theory using empirical models [115]. Its capacity to manage measurement error, one of the most significant constraints of most studies, is perhaps its greatest advantage [116]. SEM is a combination of factor analysis and multiple regression analysis, and it is used to analyse the structural relationship between measured variables and latent constructs [117]. Conducting SEM in data analysis involves two steps [117]. The first step is conducting a measurement of the model and the second step is conducting a structural equation of the model. In a measurement model, a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) process needs to be conducted initially. CFA is a validation process and it is used to determine the validity and reliability of a latent construct [117]. There are three types of validity: construct validity, convergent validity and discriminant validity. The former is achieved when the Fitness Index Model has reached its standard. Four indicators [113] are suitable for testing the Fitness Index Model; the Root Means Square of Error Approximation (RMSEA) (good if RMSEA < 0.08); the Comparative Fit Index (CFI) (good if CFI > 0.9); the Tucker- Lewis Index (TLI) (good if TLI > 0.9) and Chi Square/degree of freedom (Chisq/df) (good if Chisq/df < 3.0). Figure 3 indicates that the Fitness Index Model standard had been achieved. The results of the indicators show that RMSEA = 0.05, CFI = 0.99, TLI = 0.99 and Chi/df = 1.7.
Convergent validity of a model is achieved if the Average Variance Extracted (AVE) value of the latent construct is above 0.5, the Composite Reliability (CR) value of the latent construct is above 0.6 and the factor loading of the item is above 0.6 [113]. Table 2 shows that the model had a high internal consistency and reliability. The results indicate that the AVE of all the latent constructs are between 0.81 and 0.84. The CR values of all the latent constructs are between 0.93 and 0.95. Meanwhile, all 11 items had a high factor loading of between 0.88 and 0.94.
When a model is free from redundant items, it means the discriminant validity is achieved. The discriminant validity is assessed by comparing the square root of AVE and the correlation coefficient of the latent constructs. It is achieved if the diagonal value with bold (the square root of AVE) is larger than the value in its row and column (correlation coefficient) [113]. Table 3 shows that the discriminant validity of all the latent constructs was achieved, since the results indicate that all the square root AVE values were larger than the correlation coefficient values.
In the study, the data distribution analysis was also conducted to evaluate whether the data was normally distributed. Table 4 presents the results of the analysis. The results indicate that the data was normally distributed. The values of the skewness item are lower than 1.0, indicating the data was normally distributed.

4.2. Structural Equation Modelling

After the measurement modelling had been conducted, the final step implemented the structural equation modelling. In this step, the Fitness Index Model also needed to be run structurally [117]. Figure 4 shows that the Fitness Index Model for SEM was achieved, since the results were as follows: RMSEA = 0.047, CFI = 0.993, TLI = 0.991 and ChiSq/df = 1.692.
The direct effect results shown in Table 5 indicate that the path coefficient of attitude to staying at a local homestay for wildlife conservation in terms of intention to stay at a local homestay for wildlife conservation is 0.47, so it is statistically significant. Thus, Hypothesis H1 is supported by the results. The path coefficient of anticipated emotion to attitude to staying at a local homestay for wildlife conservation is 0.85, which shows that it is statistically significant. Thus, Hypothesis H2 is also supported by the results. Finally, the path coefficient of anticipated emotion on intention to stay at a local homestay for wildlife conservation is 0.4 and the p-value result indicates that it is statistically significant. Thus, Hypothesis H3 is also supported by the results.
Mediation analysis is prominent in psychological theory and research [118]. This study was conducted in part to quantify the extent to which attitude to staying at a local homestay for wildlife conservation was a mediating variable. A mediating variable is one that illustrates a relationship between dependent and independent variables [118]. There are two ways to analyse the mediating effect, which are to determine the direct and the indirect effects. Based on Baron and Kenny, several steps are needed to determine the existence of a mediator variable using the direct effect. First, there should be a correlation between an independent variable and a mediator variable; second, there should be a correlation between the mediator variable and the dependent variable; and third, if the relationship between the independent variable and the dependent variable is significant, this means the existence of a partial mediator. The results reveal a partial mediating effect of attitude to staying at a local homestay for wildlife conservation on the relationship between anticipated emotion and intention to stay at a local homestay for wildlife conservation, which is supported by the findings for Hypothesis H4. The indirect effect tests also show that there is a mediating effect of attitude to staying at a local homestay for wildlife conservation between the relationship of anticipated emotion and intention to stay at a local homestay for wildlife conservation. These results are presented in Figure 5. Based on Baron and Kenny, if the indirect effect of axb < c, and there is a significant effect at both sides, then a partial mediator exists in the relationship. In the results of this study, axb = c and both sides were significant. These results reveal that there is a partial mediating effect of attitude to staying at a local homestay for wildlife conservation on the relationship between anticipated emotion and intention to stay at a local homestay for wildlife conservation; this supported the findings for Hypothesis H4.
Recently, scholars have tended to confirm the result of a mediator using bootstrapping analysis. Bootstrapping is a non-parametric test based on resampling, with many instances of replacement, e.g., 1000. Based on the bootstrapping results in Table 6, the significant results for both the direct and indirect effects in this study have confirmed that attitude to staying at a local homestay for wildlife conservation partially mediates the relationship between anticipated emotion and intention to stay at a local homestay for wildlife conservation.

5. Discussion and Conclusions

This research examined the mediator roles of attitude towards staying in a local homestay for wildlife conservation between the relationship of anticipated emotion and intention to understand ecotourist responsible economic behaviour. The study revealed that attitude towards staying in a local homestay for wildlife conservation has a significant direct effect on intention to stay in local homestays for wildlife conservation. This result is in line with studies conducted by Clark Mulgrew, Kannis–Dymand, Schaffer and Hoberg [78]; Phu, Hai, Yen and Son [79]; Meng and Choi [80]; and Gstaettner, Rodger and Lee [81]. The study also proves that anticipated emotion can influence attitude since the results indicate that anticipated emotion has a significant direct effect on attitude towards staying in a local homestay for wildlife conservation. These results support those of previous studies by Kim, Njite and Hancer [95] and Londono, Davies and Elms [96]. The study also shows that anticipated emotion can highly influence intention since the results indicate that anticipated emotion has a significant direct effect on intention to stay in a local homestay for wildlife conservation, which is in line with previous studies [95,96]. The study also confirmed that attitude is a mediator between anticipated emotion and intention, since the study revealed the mediating effect of attitude to staying in a local homestay for wildlife conservation between anticipated emotion and intention to stay in a local homestay for wildlife conservation. This result is also supported by the findings of previous studies by Gilchrist, Masser, Horsley and Ditto [102] and Taylor, Ishida, and Donovan [103]. The high variance in explaining attitude and intention shows that anticipated emotion plays an important role in understanding economically responsible ecotourists’ attitudes and intentions to stay in local homestays for wildlife conservation. In practical terms, the current study has proven that a responsible ecotourist’s attitudes and intentions are influenced by his/her anticipated emotions. Therefore, it is suggested that an emotional element is considered in advertising that promotes a local homestay. This would resemble the actions of major companies and organisations, e.g., Mars, Coca Cola, and the World Wildlife Fund, which have promoted their products and services in this way. For example, players in the ecotourism industry can use narratives and storytelling strategies to market a local homestay by creating an emotional connection between tourists and wildlife. Since colours have a scientifically proven association with human emotions, stakeholders could also practise this technique in their marketing strategies. Although the influences of colours vary according to gender, stakeholders could consider the power of colour itself to influence others. For example, black and purple are related to being strong, powerful and masterful; red is arousing; blue is soft. The colour Facebook uses is blue and that of Coca-Cola is red; this is no coincidence. Word-of-mouth techniques (through testimonials, customer reviews, logos, or real customer stories) are also important in instilling trust in a tourist. Trust will eventually produce a positive emotional reaction, such as ‘If other people trust them, I should too’. Airbnb is well-known for using the simple yet strong word-of-mouth method. Since this study has determined that attitude mediates the relationship between anticipated emotion and intention, it is also suggested that players in the ecotourism industry conduct strategic planning on how to improve the attitudes of responsible ecotourists to wildlife conservation. The more positive the attitude to wildlife conservation is, the higher the chance that a responsible ecotourist will stay in a local homestay to help the local economy. An effective marketing strategy would induce responsible ecotourists to choose a local homestay rather than other accommodation.
To summarize, ecotourists are particularly responsible for wildlife conservation when they are willing to stay in local homestays and pay for their accommodations to aid the local economy through changes in their attitudes and emotions. This study has some limitations due to time constraints. Although this study found that attitude and anticipated emotion greatly influence behavioural intentions, the study did not consider the effect of behavioural intentions on the actual behaviour of responsible ecotourists. According to Ajzen [53], not all intentions have a significant effect on actual behaviour. It is recommended that future researchers conduct a study of economically responsible ecotourist behaviour using the Theory of Planned Behaviour.

Author Contributions

Writing—original draft preparation, H.I.; data curation, M.M.; writing—review and editing, E.L.A.L.; and validation, S.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was partially funded by University Putra Malaysia (UPM) under UPM Journal Publication Fund.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A

Table
Table A1. Items in the questionnaire.
Table A1. Items in the questionnaire.
ConstructIndicatorsSource
Anticipated Emotion
AE_1If I visit Penang National Park next time, it would be extremely pleasureable if I stay at local homestay that contributes to wildlife conservation.[84]
AE_2If I visit Penang National Park next time, I would be extremely frustrated if I didn’t join a local homestay that contributes to wildlife conservation.
AE_3If I visit Penang National Park next time, I would always be proud to stay at a local homestay that contributes to wildlife conservation.
AE_4If I visit Penang National Parksnext time, I would feel guilty not paying for a local homestay that contributes to wildlife conservation.
Attitude
ATT_1I would very much like to stay at local homestay if it would contribute to the wildlife conservation in Penang National Park.[112]
ATT_2I would very much like to join local homestay programmes if it contributes to the wildlife conservation in Penang National Park.
ATT_3I would very much like to promote local homestays if it contributes to the wildlife conservation in Penang National Park.
ATT_4I would very much like to pay for staying at a local homestay if it contributes to the wildlife conservation in Penang National Park.
Intention
INT_1I intend to stay at a local homestay when visiting Penang National Park this year for wildlife conservation.[112]
INT_2I intend to join local homestay programmes when visiting Penang National Park this year for wildlife conservation.
INT_3I will pay for staying at a local homestay when visiting Penang National Park this year for wildlife conservation.

References

  1. Almond, R.E.A.; Grooten, M.; Petersen, T. (Eds.) Living Planet Report 2020. Bending the Curve of Biodiversity Loss: A Deep Dive into Freshwater; WWF: Gland, Switzerland, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  2. Duffy, R.; John, F.S.; Büscher, B.; Brockington, D. Toward a new understanding of the links between poverty and illegal wildlife hunting. Conserv. Biol. 2015, 30, 14–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Symes, W.S.; McGrath, F.L.; Rao, M.; Carrasco, L.R. The gravity of wildlife trade. Biol. Conserv. 2018, 218, 268–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. UNODC. World Wildlife Crime Report 2020; United Nations Office on Drug and Crime: Vienna, Austria, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  5. Bricker, K. The International Ecotourism Society Travel and Tourism Research Association: Advancing Tourism Research Globally. 2017. Available online: https://scholarworks.umass.edu/ttra/2013marketing/White_Papers/11 (accessed on 30 May 2021).
  6. McLoughlin, E.; Hanrahan, J. Local authority tourism planning in Ireland: An environmental perspective. J. Policy Res. Tour. Leis. Events 2015, 8, 33–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Hussin, R. Ecotourism and Community Participation in the Homestay Programme of Sukau Village: Long-term or Limited Benefits? SARJANA 2008, 23, 72–86. [Google Scholar]
  8. Yusof, Y.; Muda, M.S.; Amin, W.A.; Ibrahim, Y. Rural tourism in Malaysia: A homestay program. China-USA Bus. Rev. 2013, 12, 300–306. [Google Scholar]
  9. Andriotis, K.; Agiomirgianakis, G.; Mihiotis, A. Tourist Vacation Preferences: The Case of Mass Tourists to Crete. Tour. Anal. 2007, 12, 51–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Shoval, N.; McKercher, B.; Ng, E.; Birenboim, A. Hotel location and tourist activity in cities. Ann. Tour. Res. 2011, 38, 1594–1612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Lee, W.H.; Moscardo, G. Understanding the Impact of Ecotourism Resort Experiences on Tourists’ Environmental Attitudes and Behavioural Intentions. J. Sustain. Tour. 2005, 13, 546–565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Jamal, S.A.; Othman, N.; Muhammad, N.M.N. Tourist perceived value in a community-based homestay visit: An investigation into the functional and experiential aspect of value. J. Vacat. Mark. 2011, 17, 5–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Mura, P. Perceptions of authenticity in a Malaysian homestay—A narrative analysis. Tour. Manag. 2015, 51, 225–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Kasuma, J.; Esmado, M.I.; Yacob, Y.; Kanyan, A.; Nahar, H. Tourist perception towards homestay businesses: Sabah experience. J. Sci. Res. Dev. 2016, 3, 7–12. [Google Scholar]
  15. Karki, K.; Chhetri, B.B.K.; Chaudhary, B.; Khanal, G. Assessment of Socio-economic and Environmental Outcomes of the Homestay Program at Amaltari Village of Nawalparasi, Nepal. J. For. Nat. Resour. Manag. 2019, 1, 77–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Kc, B. Ecotourism for wildlife conservation and sustainable livelihood via community-based homestay: A formula to success or a quagmire? Curr. Issues Tour. 2020, 24, 1227–1243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Ballantine, J.L.; Eagles, P.F.J. Defining Canadian ecotourists. J. Sustain. Tour. 1994, 2, 210–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Sharpley, R. Ecotourism: A Consumption Perspective. J. Ecotour. 2006, 5, 7–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Chiu, Y.-T.H.; Lee, W.-I.; Chen, T.-H. Environmentally responsible behavior in ecotourism: Antecedents and implications. Tour. Manag. 2014, 40, 321–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Dolnicar, S.; Crouch, G.I.; Long, P. Environment-friendly Tourists: What Do We Really Know About Them? J. Sustain. Tour. 2008, 16, 197–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Weeden, C. Responsible Tourist Behaviour, 1st ed.; Routledge: London, UK, 2013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Stronza, A. The Economic Promise of Ecotourism for Conservation. J. Ecotour. 2007, 6, 210–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Stronza, A.L.; Hunt, C.; Fitzgerald, L.A. Ecotourism for Conservation? Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2019, 44, 229–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Ballantyne, R.; Packer, J.; Falk, J. Visitors’ learning for environmental sustainability: Testing short- and long-term impacts of wildlife tourism experiences using structural equation modelling. Tour. Manag. 2011, 32, 1243–1252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  25. Ballantyne, R.; Packer, J.; Hughes, K.; Dierking, L. Conservation learning in wildlife tourism settings: Lessons from research in zoos and aquariums. Environ. Educ. Res. 2007, 13, 367–383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Hughes, K.; Packer, J.; Ballantyne, R. Using post-visit action resources to support family conservation learning following a wildlife tourism experience. Environ. Educ. Res. 2011, 17, 307–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Orams, M.B. A conceptual model of tourist-wildlife interaction: The case for education as a management strategy. Aust. Geogr. 1996, 27, 39–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Ham, S.H.; Weiler, B. Interpretation as the centrepiece of sustainable wildlife tourism. Sustain. Tour. Butterworth-Heinemann Oxf. 2002, 35–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Hughes, K. Measuring the impact of viewing wildlife: Do positive intentions equate to long-term changes in conservation behaviour? J. Sustain. Tour. 2013, 21, 42–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Jacobs, M.H.; Harms, M. Influence of interpretation on conservation intentions of whale tourists. Tour. Manag. 2014, 42, 123–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Marschall, S.; Granquist, S.M.; Burns, G.L. Interpretation in wildlife tourism: Assessing the effectiveness of signage on visitor behaviour at a seal watching site in Iceland. J. Outdoor Recreat. Tour. 2017, 17, 11–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Moscardo, G.; Woods, B.; Saltzer, R. The role of interpretation in wildlife tourism. In Wildlife Tourism: Impacts, Management and Planning; Higginbottom, K., Ed.; Common Ground/Sustainable Tourism CRC: Altona, VIC, Australia, 2004; pp. 231–251. [Google Scholar]
  33. Zeppel, H.; Muloin, S. Conservation Benefits of Interpretation on Marine Wildlife Tours. Hum. Dimens. Wildl. 2008, 13, 280–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Myers, N. The Tourist as an Agent for Development and Wildlife Conservation: The Case of Kenya. Int. J. Soc. Econ. 1975, 2, 26–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Gong, J.; Detchkhajornjaroensri, P.; Knight, D.W. Responsible tourism in Bangkok, Thailand: Resident perceptions of Chinese tourist behaviour. Int. J. Tour. Res. 2018, 21, 221–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Zgolli, S.; Zaiem, I. The responsible behavior of tourist: The role of personnel factors and public power and effect on the choice of destination. Arab. Econ. Bus. J. 2018, 13, 168–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Chiu, Y.-T.H.; Lee, W.-I.; Chen, T.-H. Environmentally Responsible Behavior in Ecotourism: Exploring the Role of Destination Image and Value Perception. Asia Pac. J. Tour. Res. 2013, 19, 876–889. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Han, J.H.; Lee, M.J.; Hwang, Y.-S. Tourists’ Environmentally Responsible Behavior in Response to Climate Change and Tourist Experiences in Nature-Based Tourism. Sustainability 2016, 8, 644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Kiatkawsin, K.; Sutherland, I.; Lee, S.K. Determinants of Smart Tourist Environmentally Responsible Behavior Using an Extended Norm-Activation Model. Sustainability 2020, 12, 4934. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Su, L.; Swanson, S.R. The effect of destination social responsibility on tourist environmentally responsible behavior: Compared analysis of first-time and repeat tourists. Tour. Manag. 2017, 60, 308–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Luo, W.; Tang, P.; Jiang, L.; Su, M.M. Influencing mechanism of tourist social responsibility awareness on environmentally responsible behavior. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 271, 122565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Xu, S.; Kim, H.J.; Liang, M.; Ryu, K. Interrelationships between tourist involvement, tourist experience, and environmentally responsible behavior: A case study of Nansha Wetland Park, China. J. Travel Tour. Mark. 2018, 35, 856–868. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. He, X.; Hu, D.; Swanson, S.R.; Su, L.; Chen, X. Destination perceptions, relationship quality, and tourist environmentally responsible behavior. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 2018, 28, 93–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Aseres, S.A.; Sira, R.K. Estimating visitors’ willingness to pay for a conservation fund: Sustainable financing approach in protected areas in Ethiopia. Heliyon 2020, 6, e04500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Barnes, J.I.; Schier, C.; Van Rooy, G. Tourists’ willingness to pay for wildlife viewing and wildlife conservation in Namibia. S. Afr. J. Wildl. Res. 24-Mon. Delayed Open Access 1999, 29, 101–111. [Google Scholar]
  46. Davis, D.; Tisdell, C.A. Tourist Levies and Willingness to Pay for a Whale Shark Experience. Tour. Econ. 1999, 5, 161–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Kaffashi, S.; Yacob, M.R.; Clark, M.S.; Radam, A.; Mamat, M.F. Exploring visitors’ willingness to pay to generate revenues for managing the National Elephant Conservation Center in Malaysia. For. Policy Econ. 2015, 56, 9–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Mmopelwa, G.; Kgathi, D.; Molefhe, L. Tourists’ perceptions and their willingness to pay for park fees: A case study of self-drive tourists and clients for mobile tour operators in Moremi Game Reserve, Botswana. Tour. Manag. 2007, 28, 1044–1056. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Murphy, S.E.; Campbell, I.; Drew, J.A. Examination of tourists’ willingness to pay under different conservation scenarios; Evidence from reef manta ray snorkeling in Fiji. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0198279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  50. Tisdell, C.; Wilson, C. Wildlife-Based Tourism and Increased Support for Nature Conservation Financially and otherwise: Evidence from Sea Turtle Ecotourism at Mon Repos. Tour. Econ. 2001, 7, 233–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. Hultman, K.G.M.; Kazeminia, A.; Ghasemi, V. Intention to visit and willingness to pay premium for ecotourism: The impact of attitude, materialism, and motivation. J. Bus. Res. 2015, 68, 1854–1861. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Ajzen, I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 1991, 50, 179–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Lam, S.-P. Predicting Intentions to Conserve Water from the Theory of Planned Behavior, Perceived Moral Obligation, and Perceived Water Right. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 1999, 29, 1058–1071. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Trumbo, G.J.O.C.W. Intention to Conserve Water: Environmental Values, Planned Behavior, and Information Effects. A Comparison of Three Communities Sharing a Watershed. Soc. Nat. Resour. 2001, 14, 889–899. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Tonglet, M.; Phillips, P.S.; Read, A.D. Using the Theory of Planned Behaviour to investigate the determinants of recycling behaviour: A case study from Brixworth, UK. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2004, 41, 191–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Nie, H.; Vasseur, V.; Fan, Y.; Xu, J. Exploring reasons behind careful-use, energy-saving behaviours in residential sector based on the theory of planned behaviour: Evidence from Changchun, China. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 230, 29–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Yuriev, A.; Dahmen, M.; Paillé, P.; Boiral, O.; Guillaumie, L. Pro-environmental behaviors through the lens of the theory of planned behavior: A scoping review. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2020, 155, 104660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Wang, Q.-C.; Chang, R.; Xu, Q.; Liu, X.; Jian, I.Y.; Ma, Y.-T.; Wang, Y.-X. The impact of personality traits on household energy conservation behavioral intentions—An empirical study based on theory of planned behavior in Xi’an. Sustain. Energy Technol. Assess. 2020, 43, 100949. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Eagly, A.H.; Chaiken, S. The Psychology of Attitudes; Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers: Orlando, FL, USA, 1993. [Google Scholar]
  60. Ajzen, I. Nature and Operation of Attitudes. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2001, 52, 27–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  61. Haddock, G.; Maio, G.R. Attitudes: Content, structure and functions. In Introduction to Social Psychology: A European Perspective, 4th ed.; BPS Textbooks in Psychology; Blackwell: Oxford, UK, 2008; pp. 112–133. [Google Scholar]
  62. Ajzen, I. Attitude structure and behavior. In Attitude Structure and Function; Breckler, S.J., Greenwald, A.G., Eds.; American Psychiatric Association: Washington, DC, USA, 1989; pp. 241–274. [Google Scholar]
  63. King, N. Determining the wildlife value orientation (WVO): A case study of lower Kinabatangan, Sabah. Worldw. Hosp. Tour. Themes 2013, 5, 377–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Soulsbury, C.D.; White, P.C.L. Human–wildlife interactions in urban areas: A review of conflicts, benefits and opportunities. Wildl. Res. 2015, 42, 541–553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  65. Lischka, S.A.; Teel, T.L.; Johnson, H.E.; Reed, S.E.; Breck, S.; Carlos, A.D.; Crooks, K.R. A conceptual model for the integration of social and ecological information to understand human-wildlife interactions. Biol. Conserv. 2018, 225, 80–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  66. Hemson, G.; Maclennan, S.; Mills, G.; Johnson, P.; Macdonald, D. Community, lions, livestock and money: A spatial and social analysis of attitudes to wildlife and the conservation value of tourism in a human–carnivore conflict in Botswana. Biol. Conserv. 2009, 142, 2718–2725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Shrestha, R.K.; Alavalapati, J.R.R. Linking Conservation and Development: An Analysis of Local People’s Attitude Towards Koshi Tappu Wildlife Reserve, Nepal. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2006, 8, 69–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Sekhar, N.U. Local people’s attitudes towards conservation and wildlife tourism around Sariska Tiger Reserve, India. J. Environ. Manag. 2003, 69, 339–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Hariohay, K.; Fyumagwa, R.D.; Kideghesho, J.R.; Røskaft, E. Awareness and attitudes of local people toward wildlife conservation in the Rungwa Game Reserve in Central Tanzania. Hum. Dimens. Wildl. 2018, 23, 503–514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Holsman, R.H.; Ben Peyton, R. Stakeholder attitudes toward ecosystem management in southern Michigan. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 2003, 349–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Marshall, K.; White, R.; Fischer, A. Conflicts between humans over wildlife management: On the diversity of stakeholder attitudes and implications for conflict management. Biodivers. Conserv. 2007, 16, 3129–3146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. van der Meer, E.; Dullemont, H. Human-carnivore coexistence: Factors influencing stakeholder attitudes towards large carnivores and conservation in Zimbabwe. Environ. Conserv. 2020, 48, 48–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Weladji, R.B.; Moe, S.R.; Vedeld, P. Stakeholder attitudes towards wildlife policy and the Bénoué Wildlife Conservation Area, North Cameroon. Environ. Conserv. 2003, 30, 334–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. West, B.C.; Parkhurst, J.A. Interactions between deer damage, deer density, and stakeholder attitudes in Virginia. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 2002, 30, 139–147. [Google Scholar]
  75. Barthwal, S.C.; Mathur, V.B. Teachers’ Knowledge of and Attitude toward Wildlife and Conservation. Mt. Res. Dev. 2012, 32, 169–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Newhouse, N. Implications of Attitude and Behavior Research for Environmental Conservation. J. Environ. Educ. 1990, 22, 26–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Clark, E.; Mulgrew, K.; Kannis-Dymand, L.; Schaffer, V.; Hoberg, R. Theory of planned behaviour: Predicting tourists’ pro-environmental intentions after a humpback whale encounter. J. Sustain. Tour. 2019, 27, 649–667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Phu, N.H.; Hai, P.T.; Yen, H.T.P.; Son, P.X. Applying theory of planned behaviour in researching tourists’ behaviour: The case of Hoi An World Cultural Heritage site, Vietnam. Afr. J. Hosp. Tour. Leis. 2019. Available online: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Applying-theory-of-planned-behaviour-in-researching-Toan/ebf27aa61ee05008794d4c06a3ba49be1150f2d8 (accessed on 11 August 2021).
  79. Meng, B.; Choi, K. Extending the theory of planned behaviour: Testing the effects of authentic perception and environmental concerns on the slow-tourist decision-making process. Curr. Issues Tour. 2016, 19, 528–544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Gstaettner, A.M.; Rodger, K.; Lee, D. Visitor perspectives of risk management in a natural tourism setting: An application of the Theory of Planned Behaviour. J. Outdoor Recreat. Tour. 2017, 19, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Lowenstein, G.; Lerner, J.S. The role of affect in decision making. In Handbook of Affective Science; Davidson, R., Scherer, K., Goldsmith, H., Eds.; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2003; pp. 619–642. [Google Scholar]
  82. Mellers, B.; Schwartz, A.; Ritov, I. Emotion-based choice. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 1999, 128, 332–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Bagozzi, R.P.; Belanche, D.; Casaló, L.V.; Flavián, C. The Role of Anticipated Emotions in Purchase Intentions. Psychol. Mark. 2016, 33, 629–645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Malone, S.; McKechnie, S.; Tynan, C. Tourists’ emotions as a resource for customer value creation, cocreation, and destruction: A customer-grounded understanding. J. Travel Res. 2018, 57, 843–855. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Apps, K.; Dimmock, K.; Huveneers, C. Turning wildlife experiences into conservation action: Can white shark cage-dive tourism influence conservation behaviour? Mar. Policy 2018, 88, 108–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. McIntosh, D.; Wright, P.A. Emotional processing as an important part of the wildlife viewing experience. J. Outdoor Recreat. Tour. 2017, 18, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Harland, P.; Staats, H.; Wilke, H.A.M. Explaining Proenvironmental Intention and Behavior by Personal Norms and the Theory of Planned Behavior. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 1999, 29, 2505–2528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Parker, D.; Manstead, A.S.R.; Stradling, S.G. Extending the theory of planned behaviour: The role of personal norm. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 1995, 34, 127–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Kaiser, F.G.; Hübner, G.G.; Bogner, F.X. Contrasting the Theory of Planned Behavior with the Value-Belief-Norm Model in Explaining Conservation Behavior. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 2005, 35, 2150–2170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Ateş, H. Merging Theory of Planned Behavior and Value Identity Personal norm model to explain pro-environmental behaviors. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2020, 24, 169–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Oteng-Peprah, M.; de Vries, N.; Acheampong, M. Households’ willingness to adopt greywater treatment technologies in a developing country—Exploring a modified theory of planned behaviour (TPB) model including personal norm. J. Environ. Manag. 2019, 254, 109807. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Onwezen, M.C.; Antonides, G.; Bartels, J. The Norm Activation Model: An exploration of the functions of anticipated pride and guilt in pro-environmental behaviour. J. Econ. Psychol. 2013, 39, 141–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Rivis, A.; Sheeran, P.; Armitage, C. Expanding the Affective and Normative Components of the Theory of Planned Behavior: A Meta-Analysis of Anticipated Affect and Moral Norms. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 2009, 39, 2985–3019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Kim, Y.J.; Njite, D.; Hancer, M. Anticipated emotion in consumers’ intentions to select eco-friendly restaurants: Augmenting the theory of planned behavior. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2013, 34, 255–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Londono, J.C.; Davies, K.; Elms, J. Extending the Theory of Planned Behavior to examine the role of anticipated negative emotions on channel intention: The case of an embarrassing product. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2017, 36, 8–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Shrout, P.E.; Bolger, N. Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: New procedures and recommendations. Psychol. Methods 2002, 7, 422–445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Cohen, P.; West, S.G.; Aiken, L.S. Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 3rd ed.; Routledge: London, UK, 2013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Zhang, Y.; Wang, L. Influence of Sustainable Development by Tourists’ Place Emotion: Analysis of the Multiply Mediating Effect of Attitude. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  99. Rahman, M.; Rana, S.; Hoque, M.N.; Rahman, M.K. Brand perception of halal tourism services and satisfaction: The mediating role of tourists’ attitudes. Int. J. Tour. Sci. 2019, 19, 18–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Mehmood, S.; Liang, C.; Gu, D. Heritage Image and Attitudes toward a Heritage Site: Do They Really Mediate the Relationship between User-Generated Content and Travel Intentions toward a Heritage Site? Sustainability 2018, 10, 4403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  101. Gilchrist, P.T.; Masser, B.M.; Horsley, K.; Ditto, B. Predicting blood donation intention: The importance of fear. Transfusion 2019, 59, 3666–3673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Taylor, S.A.; Ishida, C.; Donovan, L.A.N. Considering the Role of Affect and Anticipated Emotions in the Formation of Consumer Loyalty Intentions. Psychol. Mark. 2016, 33, 814–829. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Tan, S.G. Biodiversity characterization in Malaysia through biology and genetics. Genetik 2009, 14, 3–7. [Google Scholar]
  104. Law of Malaysia: Act 226 National Parks Act; The Commissioner of Law Revision: Malaysia, 1980.
  105. Kaffashi, S.; Radam, A.; Shamsudin, M.N.; Yacob, M.R.; Nordin, N.H. Ecological Conservation 1980, Ecotourism, and Sustainable Management: The Case of Penang National Park. Forests 2015, 6, 2345–2370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  106. Hong, C.W.; Chan, N.W. The potentials, threats and challenges in sustainable development of Penang National Park. Malays. J. Environ. Manag. 2010, 11, 95–109. [Google Scholar]
  107. Sekaran, U.; Bougie, R. Research Methods for Business: A Skill Building Approach; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  108. Burns, R.P.; Burns, R. Business Research Methods and Statistics Using SPSS; Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  109. Taherdoost, H. Sampling methods in research methodology. How to choose a sampling technique for research. Int. J. Acad. Res. Manag. (IJARM) 2016, 5, 18–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Taherdoost, H. Validity and Reliability of the Research Instrument; How to Test the Validation of a Questionnaire/Survey in a Research. Int. J. Acad. Res. Manag. 2016, 5, 28–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Ajzen, I. Theory of Planned Behaviour Questionnaire. Available online: https://www.midss.org/content/theory-planned-behaviour-questionnaire (accessed on 22 February 2021).
  112. Awang, Z. SEM Made Simple; MPWS: Bandar Baru Bangi, Malaysia, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  113. Gefen, D.; Rigdon, E.; Straub, D. Editor’s Comments: An Update and Extension to SEM Guidelines for Administrative and Social Science Research. MIS Q. 2011, 35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Ibrahim, H.; Mariapan, M.; Lin, E.; Bidin, S. Environmental Concern, Attitude and Intention in Understanding Student’s Anti-Littering Behavior Using Structural Equation Modeling. Sustainability 2021, 13, 4301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error. J. Mark. Res. 1981, 18, 39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Kline, R.B. Response to Leslie Hayduk’s Review of Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling; The Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 1998. [Google Scholar]
  117. MacKinnon, D.P.; Fairchild, A.J.; Fritz, M.S. Mediation analysis. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2007, 58, 593–614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  118. Baron, R.M.; Kenny, D.A. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1986, 51, 1173–1182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 13 09273 g001 550
Figure 1. The proposed research framework.
Figure 1. The proposed research framework.
Sustainability 13 09273 g001
Sustainability 13 09273 g002 550
Figure 2. Map of Penang National Park, Malaysia.
Figure 2. Map of Penang National Park, Malaysia.
Sustainability 13 09273 g002
Sustainability 13 09273 g003 550
Figure 3. Result of Fitness Index Model.
Figure 3. Result of Fitness Index Model.
Sustainability 13 09273 g003
Sustainability 13 09273 g004 550
Figure 4. Fitness Index for SEM.
Figure 4. Fitness Index for SEM.
Sustainability 13 09273 g004
Sustainability 13 09273 g005 550
Figure 5. Indirect Effect Result.
Figure 5. Indirect Effect Result.
Sustainability 13 09273 g005
Table
Table 1. Sample description.
Table 1. Sample description.
ItemClassificationSample AmountsPercentage (%)
Age18–2312739.7
24–297222.5
30–356018.8
36–414714.7
Above 41144.4
GenderMale13441.9
Female18658.1
NationalityMalaysian26382.2
Non-Malaysian5717.8
StatusEmployed22971.6
Unemployed113.4
Pensioner51.6
Student7523.4
Purpose VisitingBusiness299.1
Leisure23774.1
Others5416.9
Table
Table 2. Result of Convergent Validity and Composite Reliability.
Table 2. Result of Convergent Validity and Composite Reliability.
ConstructItemFactor LoadingCRAVE
Anticipated EmotionAE_10.90.950.83
AE_20.92
AE_30.9
AE_40.91
AttitudeATT_10.880.950.84
ATT_20.93
ATT_30.92
ATT_40.94
IntentionINT_10.910.930.81
INT_20.92
INT_30.88
Table
Table 3. Discriminant Validity Index Summary of the Construct.
Table 3. Discriminant Validity Index Summary of the Construct.
ConstructAnticipated EmotionAttitudeIntention
Anticipated Emotion0.91
Attitude0.850.92
Intention0.80.810.9
Table
Table 4. The assessment of normality distribution for items of the constructs.
Table 4. The assessment of normality distribution for items of the constructs.
VariableMinMaxSkewc.r.Kurtosisc.r.
INT_11.0005.000−0.001−0.006−0.318−1.161
INT_21.0005.000−0.037−0.268−0.182−0.666
INT_31.0005.0000.0170.127−0.383−1.399
AE_11.0005.000−0.297−2.173−0.470−1.717
AE_21.0005.000−0.078−0.569−0.679−2.478
AE_31.0005.000−0.049−0.361−0.526−1.921
AE_41.0005.000−0.108−0.787−0.545−1.990
ATT_41.0005.000−0.163−1.190−0.603−2.201
ATT_31.0005.000−0.073−0.533−0.625−2.282
ATT_21.0005.000−0.146−1.069−0.622−2.271
ATT_11.0005.000−0.046−0.333−0.593−2.167
Table
Table 5. Path Coefficient and Its Significance.
Table 5. Path Coefficient and Its Significance.
StandardizedPathCoefficientEstimatep-ValueHypothesis Result
Intention<---Attitude0.470.001Supported
Attitude<---Anticipated_Emotion0.850.001Supported
Intention<---Anticipated_Emotion0.40.001Supported
Table
Table 6. Bootstrapping Result of Mediation Analysis.
Table 6. Bootstrapping Result of Mediation Analysis.
Indirect EffectDirect Effect
Bootstraping result0.3940.42
Bootsraping p-value0.001 (significant)0.003 (significant)
ResultsPartial mediation since direct is also significant
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Ibrahim, H.; Mariapan, M.; Lin, E.L.A.; Bidin, S. Wildlife Conservation through Economically Responsible Ecotourist: The Mediator Roles of Attitude between Anticipated Emotion and Intention to Stay in Local Homestays. Sustainability 2021, 13, 9273. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13169273

AMA Style

Ibrahim H, Mariapan M, Lin ELA, Bidin S. Wildlife Conservation through Economically Responsible Ecotourist: The Mediator Roles of Attitude between Anticipated Emotion and Intention to Stay in Local Homestays. Sustainability. 2021; 13(16):9273. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13169273

Chicago/Turabian Style

Ibrahim, Hayati, Manohar Mariapan, Evelyn Lim Ai Lin, and Sheena Bidin. 2021. "Wildlife Conservation through Economically Responsible Ecotourist: The Mediator Roles of Attitude between Anticipated Emotion and Intention to Stay in Local Homestays" Sustainability 13, no. 16: 9273. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13169273

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop