Determinants of consumers’ intention to visit green hotels: Combining psychological and contextual factors

Abstract

Despite growing interest, the associations between contextual and psychological factors concerning consumers’ intentions to visit green hotels have been scarce in the literature. The main purpose of this investigation is to evaluate the intentions of consumers to visit green hotels and establish determinants of this intention. We developed and tested a research model grounded on the theory of planned behavior (TPB) and inclusion of the contextual factors, biospheric value and green trust. A quantitative study was carried out among consumers in Portugal. Findings revealed that consumers have high intentions to visit green hotels. The TPB variables (attitude, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control) and the biospheric value positively affect behavioral intentions. Green trust has a positive influence on TPB variables. Similarly, the biospheric value impacts on attitude and subjective norms. The study withdraws implications for hotel managers to design effective marketing strategies in the context of green hotels.

Keywords

Consumer behavior consumer behavioral intention environmental sustainability green hotels green practices theory of planned behavior

Introduction

As climatic variations emerge (Bashir et al., 2019), environmental protection is one of the crucial issues in contemporary societies (Manganari et al., 2016). The tourism industry is often reported as one of the biggest contributors to environmental degradation (Preziosi et al., 2019). The worldwide growth in the tourism activity highlights its environmental impacts and raises the significance of tourists’ eco-friendly behavior in the conservation of both the environment and tourist destinations (Jhawar et al., 2023). There is a growing trend in hotels to change their operations and proactively implement greener practices in order to meet market demands (Choi et al., 2015; Leroux and Pupion, 2018; Preziosi et al., 2019). With the expansion of green consumption, the green hotel concept gained visibility in the hotel industry (Rahman et al., 2012). Green hotels, i.e. hotels that implement eco-friendly practices, have been increasingly perceived as a long-term trend and as key to the success of the hotel industry (Choi et al., 2015; Dang-Van et al., 2023; Han et al., 2018a, 2018b; Ting et al., 2019). Examples of these practices include recycling, towel and linen reuse programs, low-flow faucets and shower heads, refillable bath products, automatic climate control and natural ventilation (Al-Aomar and Hussain, 2017; Rahman and Reynolds, 2016; Reid et al., 2017). By adopting these initiatives, hotels contribute to environmental protection, reduce operating costs and attract consumers who identify with such approaches (Gil-Soto et al., 2019; Ting et al., 2019).

The literature in green practices in the hospitality industry gained momentum in the 1990s and continues to grow in importance and significance (D'Souza et al., 2021; Kim et al., 2017). Despite the growing popularity of green hotels, the understanding of the factors that influence consumers’ intentions to choose green hotels is still limited (Choi et al., 2015; Yadav et al., 2019). Consumers’ eco-friendly behaviors are complex. The literature lacks consensus on the drivers of eco-friendly behaviors (Chan et al., 2022). For example, while studies found that consumers are concerned about environmental issues (Yadav et al., 2019; Yarimoglu and Gunay, 2020), others suggested they are skeptical about green practices and believe it is unnecessary to stay or pay more for stays at green hotels (Chen and Chang, 2013; Gao and Mattila, 2016).

Research tends to ground on the theory of planned behavior (TPB) to determine consumers’ intentions to visit green hotels (e.g. Grubor et al., 2019; Han et al., 2010; Yadav et al., 2019). Yet TPB assumes that consumer attitudes are relatively stable and determined by psychological factors (Ajzen, 1991). Such views are limited and do not include the contextual dimension (Myung et al., 2012; Nimri et al., 2020). Few studies explored the associations between contextual and psychological factors in relation to consumers’ intentions to visit green hotels (Myung et al., 2012). A limited number of studies included the attitude-behavior-context (ABC) theory, expanding the idea that contextual factors affect consumer beliefs and attitudes (Guagnano et al., 1995).

This study looks at the extent to which consumers intend to visit green hotels and the drivers of this intention. In particular, we address the influence of psychological variables from TPB (attitude, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control), and contextual variables (biospheric value and green trust), in determining the consumer's intention to visit green hotels. By looking at the integration of psychological and contextual factors the study provides further insights on the inconsistencies observed in the literature regarding consumer behavior in relation to green hotels (Yadav et al., 2019). The study also establishes guidelines to the development of effective marketing strategies to promote positive purchasing decisions and retain environmentally conscious consumers (Bashir et al., 2019; Choi et al., 2015; Rahman and Reynolds, 2016; Verma and Chandra, 2018).

Literature background

Green hotels

The Green Hotels Association (2020) defines green hotels as “environmentally friendly properties whose managers are eager to institute programs that save water, save energy and reduce solid waste—while saving money—to help protect our one and only earth!”. This definition is based on key green management practices in the hotel industry, including saving energy and water, managing waste, and light sensors (Manganari et al., 2016; Rahman and Reynolds, 2016). Research on the green hotel industry rests on three perspectives: (i) the corporate view; (ii) the role of government and trade associations; and (iii) the consumer's perspective (Manganari et al., 2016). This study focuses on the consumer's perspective.

Over the last decade, there has been a growing interest in understanding consumers’ green purchasing intentions (Yarimoglu and Gunay, 2020). Studies tend to focus on studying the determinants of the intention to visit green hotels (Chen and Tung, 2014; D'Souza et al., 2021; Han, 2015; Wang et al., 2023; Yadav et al., 2019) or on the consumer's intention to revisit (Dang-Van et al., 2023). Others, investigate the determinants of actual behavior (Chen and Peng, 2012; Huang et al., 2014; Bashir et al., 2019). Although studies predominantly address the positive antecedents of the intention to visit green hotels (Chen and Tung, 2014; Verma et al., 2019), some assess its barriers (e.g. Baker et al., 2014; Nimri et al., 2017), or the antecedents and consequences in relation to staying in green hotels (e.g. Yarimoglu and Gunay, 2020). Since intentions to visit green hotels do not always translate into actual behaviors (Dinis et al., 2019), literature usually only focus on measuring intentions, without assessing actual behavior (Jaiswal and Kant, 2018; Paço et al., 2019). Empirical results show that, although intentions are an important prerequisite, external factors can influence actual behavior and hinder the performance of an intended action (Dinis et al., 2019). Even though consumers state their intention to stay at green hotels, their behavior does not always reflect that claim (Sadiq et al., 2022).

Theory of planned behavior and attitude-behavior-context theory

TPB states that most human behaviors result from an individual's intention to perform a certain behavior (Ajzen, 1985). Such intention is directly influenced by three theoretically independent factors: attitude, subjective norms and perceived behavioral control (Ajzen, 1991). Critics claim that all of the variables included in the TPB are rational predictors and, therefore, the theory largely rests on the assumption that individuals make rational and self-interested choices (Wang et al., 2018a; Yadav et al., 2019).

TPB has been widely applied to predict the behavioral intentions of consumers to visit green hotels (e.g. Grubor et al., 2019; Han et al., 2010 Nimri et al., 2017; Verma and Chandra, 2018; Yadav et al., 2019; Yarimoglu and Gunay, 2020). However, those studies’ findings are often inconclusive or even controversial (Wang et al., 2023). For some behaviors and contexts, the inclusion of other variables can increase the predictive utility of a research model (Chen and Tung, 2014; Han et al., 2010). In this regard, Ajzen (1991: 199) argued that the model was “in principle, open to the inclusion of additional predictors, if it can be demonstrated that they capture a significant proportion of the variance in intention or behavior.” Findings from previous studies supported the use of extended TPB for intention formation, revealing to increase its predictive power (e.g. Nimri et al., 2020; Yadav et al., 2019; Yarimoglu and Gunay, 2020). In this study, we adopt the original variables of TPB (Ajzen, 1991).

ABC theory states that behavior results from the combination of attitudinal variables and contextual factors (Guagnano et al., 1995). This theory does not have specific variables, but bases on the assumption that both external and psychological conditions influence behavior. Therefore, such variables ought to be considered simultaneously (Guagnano et al., 1995). Contextual factors refer to “situation/domain-specific factors which make a scenario unique” (Yadav et al., 2019: 386). These include interpersonal influences, values and feelings, personal abilities, publicity, community expectations, physical environment, institutional and legal factors, temporal perspectives, and various characteristics of the social, economic, and political context (Stern, 2000; Yadav et al., 2019). According to Belk (1975), these factors increase the ability to explain and understand human behaviors.

Although ABC has not been widely used in the context of green hotels, a few studies have demonstrated its effectiveness in predicting intentions to visit green hotels. For example, Yadav et al. (2019) showed that the choice of green hotels is better explained when considering both psychological and contextual factors. Green trust and biospheric value were included as contextual constructs in the model since they are related to the pro-environmental context. Previous studies have also demonstrated the critical role of both constructs in determining behavioral intentions in the context of green hotels (e.g. Chen and Chang, 2013; Choi et al., 2015; Verma et al., 2019; Yadav et al., 2019). In this way, the integration of psychological and contextual factors can contribute to a better understanding of consumers’ decisions when choosing green hotels. This study extends existing knowledge by assessing the roles of biospheric value and green trust as contextual factors in predicting the intention to visit green hotels. Figure 1 presents the conceptual framework of the study.

Figure 1.

Conceptual framework.

Research hypotheses development

Attitude

Attitudes entail the degree to which individuals have a favorable or unfavorable evaluation when performing a certain behavior. Attitudes toward a behavior are formed by behavioral beliefs (Ajzen, 1991). Hence, attitudes play a crucial role in predicting consumers’ behavioral intentions (Eid et al., 2020). The relationship between attitudes and behavioral intention has been posed as direct and positive (Ajzen, 1991). In this study, the consumer's attitude is described in relation to an ecological behavior, namely in staying or visiting green hotels when traveling. Studies show that attitude is an important antecedent of the intention to visit green hotels (e.g. Eid et al., 2020; Han and Yoon, 2015; Yadav et al., 2019; Yarimoglu and Gunay, 2020). In particular, Verma and Chandra (2018) found that attitude emerged as the most significant factor in the TPB model to predict the intention of young consumers to visit a green hotel. Therefore, we propose the following:

H1: Attitude positively influences behavioral intention to visit green hotels.

Subjective norms

Subjective norms refer to “perceived social pressure to perform or not the behavior” (Ajzen, 1991: 188). Subjective norms involve the opinions or viewpoints of other people who are important to the person and who have the ability to influence decision-making, such as family members and relatives, or groups outside the immediate family (e.g. colleagues, associates or business partners, and friends) (Chen and Tung, 2014; Ting et al., 2019; Verma and Chandra, 2018).

Studies addressing the relationship between subjective norms and behavioral intentions present inconsistent findings. Although there is growing evidence that subjective norms are a significant predictor of behavioral intentions toward visiting a green hotel (Chen and Tung, 2014; Yarimoglu and Gunay, 2020) studies also found non-significant relationships between the two variables (Nimri et al., 2020; Yadav et al., 2019). Such idea suggests that, although subjective norms can be identified through social interactions, the final decisions are processed by the individuals themselves (Choi et al., 2015). Given the inconsistencies in existing findings about the role of this variable, it is important to analyze this relationship in different contexts (e.g. Portuguese context). In light of these arguments, the following hypothesis is proposed:

H2: Subjective norms positively influence the behavioral intention to visit green hotels.

Perceived behavioral control

In the TPB model, perceived behavioral control is defined as ‘'the perceived ease or difficulty of performing the behavior” (Ajzen, 1991: 183). Transposed to this study, perceived behavioral control captures the ease or difficulty of visiting a green hotel. Some of the barriers perceived by consumers to visit green hotels include cost, location and lack of information about the hotel (Nimri et al., 2017). Previous studies empirically confirmed that perceived behavioral control positively affects behavioral intention in various contexts, including visiting green hotels (e.g. Grubor et al., 2019; Han et al., 2010; Ting et al., 2019; Verma and Chandra, 2018). In the study from Nimri et al. (2020), the influence of perceived behavioral control on intentions to visit green hotels stands out from the remaining variables. Thus, the following hypothesis is proposed:

H3: Perceived behavioral control positively influences the behavioral intention to visit green hotels.

Biospheric value

Biospheric value may be defined as “values that emphasize the environment and the biosphere itself” (De Groot and Steg 2007: 104). The increasing environmentally conscious behavior of consumers in the hotel industry seems to result from their ecocentric attitudes, which, in turn, stem from their biospheric values (Rahman and Reynolds, 2019).

Previous studies suggest that biospheric values are a strong predictor of pro-environmental behaviors, specifically in the context of green hotels. Yadav et al. (2019) showed that the biospheric value indirectly influences behavioral intentions to visit green hotels through the TPB variables attitude and perceived behavioral control. Verma et al. (2019) concluded that, among all values, biospheric value was the most significant factor in consumers’ attitude toward green hotels. Based on the above discussion, we suggest the following hypotheses:

H4a: Biospheric value positively influences attitudes toward visiting green hotels.

H4b: Biosphere value positively influences subjective norms of visiting green hotels.

H4c: Biosphere value positively influences perceived behavioral control over visiting green hotels.

Few studies tested the direct relationship between biospheric values and pro-environmental behavioral intentions, especially in the context of green hotels. Studies in the context of organic foods indicate that biospheric values are the most relevant driver for organic purchases (Doorn and Verhoef, 2015). Wang et al. (2020) further demonstrated that there is a positive relationship between biospheric value and green purchase intention. We transpose this idea to the context of our study, anticipating that the biospheric value is expected to directly influence behavioral intentions related to green hotels. Hence, the following hypothesis is proposed:

H4d: The biospheric value positively influences the behavioral intention to visit green hotels.

Green trust

Green trust encompasses “a willingness to depend on a product, service, or brand based on the belief or expectation resulting from its credibility, benevolence, and ability about its environmental performance” (Chen, 2010: 312). When applied to the study's context, trust may be defined as the individual's “belief that green hotels will perform in a manner consistent with their environmental values” (Balaji et al., 2019: 3292). Given the persistence of greenwashing practices, i.e. inappropriate use of environmental claims (Parguel et al., 2011), previous studies have validated the significant influence in determining consumers’ pro-environmental behaviors (e.g. Chen and Chang, 2013; Choi et al., 2015). For consumers who choose a green hotel over a conventional hotel, ensuring that their chosen hotel is actively dedicated to preserving the environment can be very important (Choi et al., 2015). For example, the study from Yadav et al. (2019) reveals that green trust, individually and in combination with TPB variables, is the most relevant and necessary condition for consumers to choose green hotels. Following this rationale, the present study adds consumers’ green trust to the TPB model and proposes the following hypotheses:

H5a: Green trust positively influences the attitude toward visiting green hotels.

H5b: Green trust positively influences subjective norms toward visiting green hotels.

H5c: Green trust positively influences perceived behavioral control toward visiting green hotels.

H5d: Green trust positively influences the behavioral intention to visit green hotels.

Research design

The research design entailed a consumer survey. We developed a questionnaire operationalizing the constructs from the conceptual model. We selected and adapted existing scales, previously tested in the literature, and showing high reliability and validity. Items were adapted, when necessary, to suit the study's context. The scales were selected/adapted as follows: biospheric value (De Groot and Steg, 2009); green trust followed the four-item scale from Yadav et al. (2019), adapted from Chen (2010); attitude applied the scale from Yarimoglu and Gunay (2020), adapted from Han et al. (2010); subjective norms (Han et al., 2010); perceived behavioral control (Han et al., 2010); and, behavioral intention (Han et al., 2010).

The questionnaire was back translated from English to Portuguese, in order to make it suitable for the target population and study's context. After a pre-test, the final version of the questionnaire was applied among consumers in Portugal aged 18 or over. The sampling procedure entailed a non-probability convenience sampling (Preziosi et al., 2019; Trang et al., 2019; Yarimoglu and Gunay, 2020). The questionnaire was distributed online through social media—Facebook, Linked-in, and Instagram. We focused on interest groups of participants related to travel, hospitality, tourism, sustainability. The final sample produced 921 cases. In similar quantitative studies, sample sizes ranged between 152 and 781 (Bashir et al., 2019; Nimri et al., 2020; Preziosi et al., 2019). Thus, the final sample of 921 was considered sufficient and adequate for the purpose of the study.

To address the potential issue of common method bias, both procedural and statistical techniques were employed. Respondents were assured of anonymity and were informed about the study goal, estimated completion time, and consent for study participation. Also, the scales were previously tested and validated in the literature and a pre-test was conducted before distributing the final questionnaire. With respect to statistical measures, we conducted Harman's single-factor test, in which all items are loaded into one common factor (Fuller et al., 2016). The variance obtained was 32.68%, which is less than 50%, providing evidence that the data is relatively resilient to the effects of common method bias.

Data analysis involved preliminary analysis for data suitability (Clow and James, 2014) (e.g. normality, multicollinearity and outliers). This was followed by univariate and bivariate analysis and a multivariate analysis. The measurement model assessed the psychometric properties of measurement items through a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Then, the structural equation model (SEM) was run to test the hypotheses (Hair et al., 2014). Covariance-based structural equation modeling (CB-SEM) was applied as it is an appropriate method for research purposes aimed at theory testing and confirmation (Dash and Paul, 2021). We used IBM Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS; version 22) and Analysis of Moment Structures (AMOS; version 27).

Findings

Sample profile

More than half of the sample consisted of female respondents (59.2%). Respondents’ ages are between 18 and 73 years old, with an average age of 35.8 years (SD = 12.243) and where 40% are between 18 and 29 years old. Regarding education, the vast majority has completed higher education studies with bachelor (34.1%) or master (24.1%) degrees. The vast majority of respondents resides in the North of Portugal (40.2%), followed by Lisbon Metropolitan Area (23.6%), Center (15.3%), Alentejo (7, 4%), Algarve (4.7%) and the islands of Azores (4.5%) and Madeira (4.5%). Finally, there is a predominance of respondents (36.7%) among the income group €601 to €1100 (Table 1).

Table 1.

Sociodemographic characteristics of the sample (n = 921).

Sociodemographic characteristics	Category	f	%
Gender	Female	545	59.2
	Male	375	40.7
	Other	1	0.1
Age	18–29 years	368	40
	30–39 years	217	23.6
	40–49 years	172	18.7
	50–59 years	132	14.3
	60 years and older	32	3.5
Education	Without education	2	0.2
	Basic education (up to 9th grade)	18	2
	Secondary education (10th–12th grade)	172	18.7
	Graduation	314	34.1
	Postgraduate studies	102	11.1
	Master's degree	222	24.1
	Doctorate	83	9
	Other	8	0.9
Professional situation	Student	136	14.8
	Worker—Student	81	8.8
	Self-employed	128	13.9
	Employed	470	51
	Unemployed	73	7.9
	Reformed	18	2
	Other	15	1.6
Region of residence	North	370	40.2
	Center	141	15.3
	Lisbon Metropolitan Area	217	23.6
	Alentejo	68	7.4
	Algarve	43	4.7
	Autonomous Region of Azores	41	4.5
	Autonomous Region of Madeira	41	4.5
Income (individual income)	Without income	152	16.5
	Bellow 600€	82	8.9
	601–1100€	338	36.7
	1101–1600€	181	19.7
	1601–2100€	95	10.3
	2101–2600€	43	4.7
	2601–3100€	4	0.4
	3100€ and more	26	2.8

Note: f: frequency by category; %: percentage; M: mean; SD: standard deviation.

Measurement validation

We performed CFA to gauge the properties of the measurement model. The model produced a good fit (X² = 573.288; p < 0.001; X²/df = 2.955; RMSEA = 0.046; NFI = 0.958; CFI = 0.972; GFI = 0.946; AGFI = 0.929; TLI = 0.966; IFI = 0.972) (Hair et al., 2014; Hu and Bentler, 1999). Convergent validity was evidenced by the fact that all factor loadings were higher than 0.5 (p < 0.5), composite reliability values ranged from 0.865 to 0.934 (i.e. above 0.70) and average variance extracted (AVE) values were higher than 0.6 (AVE > 0.6) (i.e. above 0.5). All constructs further demonstrated acceptable levels of cronbach alpha equal or greater than 0.8 (α ≥ 0.8), suggesting a good level of reliability (Hair et al., 2014) (Table 2). Discriminant validity was evidenced by the fact that individual constructs’ AVE was higher than the squared correlations among the constructs (Fornell and Larcker, 1981) (Table 3).

Table 2.

Measurement properties.

Variable		Convergent validity			Cronbach alpha
Construct	Item	SFL	CR	AVE	Cronbach alpha
Biospheric Value (BV) De Groot and Steg (2007); Han (2015); Rahman and Reynolds (2016); Yadav et al. (2019).	VB1. Preventing pollution	0.827	0.892	0.674	0.872
	VB2. Respecting the earth	0.888
	VB3. Unity with nature	0.711
	VB4. Protecting the environment	0.848
Green Trust (GT) Yadav et al. (2019), adapted from Chen (2010).	CE1. I feel that green hotels’ environmental functions are generally reliable	0.842	0.912	0.721	0.910
	CE2. I feel that green hotels’ environmental performance is generally dependable	0.902
	CE3. I feel that green hotels’ environmental argument is generally trustworthy	0.830
	CE4. I feel that green hotels keep promises and commitments for environmental protection	0.821
Attitude (A) Yarimoglu and Gunay (2020), adapted from Han et al. (2010).	A1. Staying at a green hotel when traveling would enable me to protect environment.	0.780	0.896	0.634	0.895
	A2. Staying at a green hotel when traveling would enable me to be more socially responsible.	0.764
	A3. Staying at a green hotel when traveling would enable me to experience a healthy environmental friendly guestroom.	0.777
	A4. Staying at a green hotel when traveling would enable me to perform environmental friendly practices.	0.840
	A5. Staying at a green hotel when traveling would enable me to enjoy environmental friendly products and healthy amenities.	0.817
Subjective Norms (SN) Han et al. (2010); Chen and Tung (2014); Han (2015); Choi et al. (2015); Verma and Chandra (2018); Yadav et al. (2019); Olya et al. (2019).	NS1. Most people who are important to me think I should stay at a green hotel when traveling.	0.907	0.934	0.825	0.931
	NS2. Most people who are important to me would want me to stay at a green hotel when traveling.	0.966
	NS3. People whose opinions I value would prefer that I stay at a green hotel when traveling.	0.848
Perceived Behavioral Control (PBC) Han et al. (2010); Teng et al. (2015); Wang et al. (2018a); Verma and Chandra (2018); Olya et al. (2019); Nimri et al. (2020).	CCP1. Whether or not I stay at a green hotel when traveling is completely up to me.	0.711	0.823	0.612	0.808
	CCP2. I am confident that if I want, I can stay at a green hotel when traveling.	0.930
	CCP3. I have resources, time, and opportunities to stay at a green hotel when traveling.	0.682
Behavioral Intention (BI) Han et al. (2010); Chen and Tung (2014); Teng et al. (2015); Choi et al. (2015); Rahman and Reynolds (2016); Verma and Chandra (2018); Verma et al. (2019); Balaji et al. (2019); Nimri et al. (2020).	IC1. I am willing to stay at a green hotel when traveling.	0.766	0.865	0.681	0.860
	IC2. I plan to stay at a green hotel when traveling.	0.872
	IC3. I will make an effort to stay at a green hotel when traveling.	0.835

Note: SFL: standardized factor loading; CR: composite reliability; AVE: average variance extracted; Cronbach's Alpha.

Table 3.

Discriminant validity.

	AVE	MSV	MaxR(H)	BV	GT	A	SN	PBC	BI
BV	0.674	0.158	0.905	0.821 ^a
GT	0.721	0.284	0.917	0.290	0.849 ^a
A	0.634	0.456	0.899	0.396	0.533	0.796 ^a
SN	0.825	0.204	0.955	0.202	0.340	0.452	0.908 ^a
PBC	0.612	0.104	0.892	0.102	0.209	0.243	0.192	0.782 ^a
BI	0.681	0.456	0.873	0.398	0.428	0.675	0.428	0.323	0.826 ^a

Note: AVE: average variance extracted; MSV: maximum shared variance; MaxR(H): maximum reliability.

Square root of AVE by construct.

Bold indicates the discriminant validity as the square root of the AVE is greater than the correlation between the constructs.

Model and hypothesis testing

The research model showed a good fit with the data (X² = 672.568; p < 0.001; X²/df = 3.414; RMSEA = 0.051; NFI = 0.951; CFI = 0.965; GFI = 0.936; AGFI = 0.918; TLI = 0.958; IFI = 0.965). The explanatory power of the model was conducted based on the adjusted coefficient of determination (R²). The model explained 42.6% (adjusted R² = 0.426; p < 0.05) of the variance of the intention to visit green hotels. Table 4 summarizes the results of the hypotheses testing concerning the direct relationships. Findings confirmed the relationships between TPB variables (i.e. attitude, subjective norms, perceived behavioral control, and behavioral intention). As expected, the results showed that attitude (β = 0.506, p < 0.001), subjective norms (β = 0.152, p < 0.001) and perceived behavioral control (β = 163, p < 0.001), are positively and significantly related to consumers’ intention to visit green hotels, supporting H1, H2, and H3.

Table 4.

Hypothesis testing (direct effects).

Direct effects	Hypothesis (H)	Effect	B	Β	S.E.	t-Value (t)	p-Value (p)	Results
A→BI	H1	+	0.458	0.506	0.039	11.878	***	Supported
SN→BI	H2	+	0.081	0.152	0.016	4.940	***	Supported
PBC→BI	H3	+	0.107	0.163	0.020	5.299	***	Supported
BV→A	H4a	+	0.347	0.265	0.044	7.910	***	Supported
BV→SN	H4b	+	0.260	0.117	0.078	3.338	***	Supported
BV→PBC	H4c	+	0.086	0.048	0.068	1.265	0.206	Not supported
BV→BI	H4d	+	0.175	0.148	0.039	4.495	***	Supported
GT→A	H5a	+	0.426	0.466	0.032	13.122	***	Supported
GT→SN	H5b	+	0.496	0.321	0.055	8.984	***	Supported
GT→PBC	H5c	+	0.257	0.205	0.048	5.291	***	Supported
GT→BI	H5d	+	0.032	0.039	0.031	1.019	0.308	Not supported

Note: +: positive; B: unstandardized regression weights; β: standardized regression weights; S.E.: standard error; t-value: critical ratio.

*** Significant p-value (p < 0.001).

In what concerns the effects of biospheric value and green trust on TPB variables, findings indicated a significant positive effect of biospheric value on intentions to visit a green hotel (β = 0.148, p < 0.001) (H4d) and a non-significant effect of green trust on intentions to stay in a green hotel (β = 0.039, p > 0.05) (H5d). As proposed, the influence of biospheric value on attitude (β = 0.265, p < 0.001) and on subjective norms (β = 0.117, p < 0.001) was positive and significant (H4a and H4b). However, the impact of biospheric value on perceived behavioral control was not significant (β = 0.048, p > 0.05) (H4c). Finally, the direct impact of green trust on TPB variables revealed a significant positive relationship between green trust and attitude (β = 0.466, p < 0.001), subjective norms (β = 0.321, p < 0.001) and perceived behavioral control (β = 0.205, p < 0.001), confirming H5a, H5b, and H5c.

Differences between groups were conducted using t-tests for independent samples (Hair et al., 2014). The dependent variable of this study—behavioral intention toward eco-hotels—was compared in relation to the group of variables gender, age, preference for green hotels and past experience in eco-hotels. Regarding gender, the results revealed that the difference in means between the female and male groups (0.2678) is statistically significant (t = 4.102; p < 0.001). The average behavioral intention of female participants was significantly higher than the average behavioral intention of male participants. As for age, the results did not show significant differences (t = 0.481; p = 0.631) between the millennials, that is, a generation extremely concerned with environmental issues born between the 1980s and the late 1990s (Wang et al., 2018b) and non-millennial participants. Consumers’ intention to visit a green hotel, on average, differed significantly between participants with a preference for visiting green hotels and those without a preference for these type of hotels (t = −13.199; p < 0.001). This means that consumers who prefer green hotels over other similar non-green hotels (M = 6.1483) have a higher behavioral intention toward green hotels than consumers who have no preference when choosing a hotel (M = 5.3630). In addition, the intention to visit a green hotel, is significantly higher for consumers who have had a past experience in these hotels (M = 5.9619), when compared to those who have never previously stayed in green hotels (M = 5.6573).

Discussion and research implications

This study provides implications in terms of the psychological and contextual factors that affect consumers’ pro-environmental purchase intention. The study evidences the application of TPB in the context of the green hotel industry, indicating that attitude, subjective norms and perceived behavioral control are positive antecedents of intention, consistent with findings from previous studies (e.g. Ajzen, 1991; Chen and Tung, 2014; Han et al., 2010; Verma and Chandra, 2018). Our results contrast with previous studies that did not show a significant influence between subjective norms and behavioral intentions in the context of green hotels (e.g. Choi et al., 2015; Yadav et al., 2019). Thus, consumers’ intention to stay in a green hotel is positively associated with perceived social pressure to visit these hotels in certain contexts. A possible explanation lies in the fact that products and services are consumed not only to satisfy consumers’ own needs, but also as a way of building a social identity and structuring interpersonal interactions (Choi et al., 2015). This result reinforces the idea that Portuguese consumers are influenced by the expectations and pressure of their reference groups to visit green hotels (Ajzen, 1991).

The critical role of perceptions of control in shaping individuals’ intentions is especially relevant. In fact, perceived behavioral control was the second-best predictor of behavioral intentions in relation to green hotels. Consistent with other studies (e.g. Nimri et al., 2020; Ting et al., 2019), consumers who felt confident in their behavioral control over green hotel selection, were more likely to do so than those who lacked trust and opportunities to stay in such hotels. Therefore, the proposed model better predicts the intentions of consumers to visit green hotels.

This study expands the literature by incorporating biospheric value orientation to better understand the formation of behavioral intentions regarding the stay in a green hotel. The research tested relevant variables from the literature, together with the biospheric value. As expected, and confirmed by previous literature in different contexts (e.g. Nguyen et al., 2016; Verma et al., 2019; Yadav et al., 2019), the biospheric value orientation revealed a direct influence on the attitude toward green hotels and on subjective norms. Thus, when a consumer has a higher biospheric value orientation, he will present a more positive attitude toward visiting green hotels and will perceive a greater influence from his reference groups (family, friends, colleagues, etc.). However, the direct impact of biospheric value on perceived behavioral control was not statistically significant, which contradicts previous findings (Yadav et al., 2019). The mediating effect of perceived behavioral control on the relationship between biospheric value and behavioral intentions was also not supported. A possible explanation for these results may be related to the fact that even if an individual has a concern and esteem for issues that affect the environment, this is not strong enough. There may be certain barriers or difficulties, including cost, location and lack of information about green hotels, that prevent individuals from obtaining a perception of control over their behavior (Baker et al., 2014; Nimri et al., 2017).

Findings further produced a non-significant effect between green trust and intentions to visit a green hotel. This result contrasts with findings from what is often evidenced in the literature (Balaji et al., 2019; Choi et al., 2015; Yadav et al., 2019). Aligned with previous studies (e.g. Balaji et al., 2019; Yadav et al., 2019), we found effects of green trust on attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control. Thus, green hotels must build consumer credibility based on a genuine commitment to protecting the environment, dispelling accusations of greenwashing, and communicating this message effectively.

Managerial implications

This study improves the current understanding of consumers’ purchasing behaviors in the context of green hotels. Deriving from the investigation, we present practical implications for various stakeholders, including hotel managers, eco-label coordinators, consumers, and marketing professionals. Understanding consumer behavior is essential for managers to maximize financial sustainability. Hotel managers ought to communicate information about their green attributes to consumers to help them understand what a green hotel is and recognize the seriousness of environmental issues and, thus, increase the positive attitudes of consumers. For example, managers may consider developing visible green experiences for guests involving them in green practices, such as waste sorting, controlling water and energy use, and participating in towel reuse programs. Also, they can collect feedback from guests regarding their green experiences and use it to make continuous improvements. As an incentive, green hotels should offer discounts or rewards to guests who opt for green practices. Biospheric value did not have a significant effect on perceived behavioral control. Hence, hotel managers should minimize possible barriers that influence the perceived behavioral control in relation to the visit to green hotels, such as the high price, lack of comfort and luxury and lack of information about the hotel.

Professionals may use our findings to reflect on more effective marketing strategies around green practices to promote environmentally responsible purchasing and increase consumers’ intention to visit green hotels. The group differences highlighted in this study can help marketing professionals to recognize the characteristics of their target segment and, as a result, advertise and promote their green hotels more effectively to the target public. Considering that green trust had a significant indirect impact on intentions through the TPB variables, green hotel professionals should build consumer credibility.

Eco-label coordinators, like Green Key certificate, can use the results of the study to encourage more hotels to join the certification and follow an environmental management. Eco-label coordinators ought to further encourage certified hotels to include more green practices to attend the growing demand and improve the effectiveness of their communication strategies.

Last but not least, collaborative efforts between governmental agencies and green hotels should encourage green practices to enhance the hospitality industry's positive reputation. Policy makers should therefore provide green incentives for both guests, employees and the hotel industry in general. This approach will motivate prospective customers to choose green hotels while encouraging hotel management to adopt green practices.

Limitations and future research direction

This study presents limitations that may be addressed in future research. From an empirical perspective, although we attained a relevant sample size, data focuses on consumers residing in Portugal. Future research may focus on consumers from other cultures and/or carry out multi-cultural comparisons. We used a convenience sampling method. Future studies may consider different contexts and sampling procedures to increase the validity and representativeness of the findings. Furthermore, the study is cross-sectional. Future research ough to consider longitudinal designs in order to observe dynamic changes. Also, a follow-up qualitative research with consumers may help to better understand behaviors and decisions to visit green hotels.

From a research model's perspective, although TPB suggests that intentions lead to actual behaviors (Ajzen, 1991), this relationship was not tested in the proposed conceptual model. Thus, further research is needed to gain a more in-depth understanding of actual consumer behaviors in the context of green hotels and their antecedents. As children influence parents’ purchasing decisions, their role shouldn’t be underestimated (Parker et al., 2022). Therefore, the potential influence of children on parents’ green hotel choice must be investigated. Finally, future studies may test other determinants of behavioral intentions toward green hotels. Examples of such variables are green image (e.g. Yarimoglu and Gunay, 2020), environmentally responsible activities (e.g. Yarimoglu and Gunay, 2020), past experience (e.g. Han, 2020) and willingness to pay more (e.g. Yadav et al., 2019). Possible consequences to consider are actual behavior (Bashir et al., 2019), satisfaction (Wang et al., 2018b) and loyalty (Yarimoglu and Gunay, 2020).

Footnotes

Author's note

Olga Pereira is also affiliated at ESTG, Polytechnic of Porto, Portugal.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. The third author aknowledges FCT, the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (UIDB/03182/2020).

ORCID iD

Sandra Ferreira

References

Ajzen

(1985) From intentions to actions: a theory of planned behavior. In: Kuhl

Beckmann

(eds) Action Control. Heidelberg: Springer, pp.11–39. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-69746-3_2.

Ajzen

(1991) The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 50(2): 179–211.

Al-Aomar

Hussain

(2017) An assessment of green practices in a hotel supply chain: a study of UAE hotels. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 32(September): 71–81.

Baker

Davis

Weaver

(2014) Eco-friendly attitudes, barriers to participation, and differences in behavior at green hotels. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 55(1): 89–99.

Balaji

Jiang

Jha

(2019) Green hotel adoption: a personal choice or social pressure? International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 31(8): 3287–3305.

Bashir

Khwaja

Turi

, et al. (2019) Extension of planned behavioral theory to consumer behaviors in green hotel. Heliyon 5(12): e02974.

Belk

(1975) Situational variables and consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer Research 2(3): 57.

Chan

MKM

Tsang

NKF

WCW

(2022) Effective approaches for encouraging hotel guests’ voluntary bedding linen reuse behavior. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 101(February): 103105.

Chen

Peng

(2012) Green hotel knowledge and tourists’ staying behavior. Annals of Tourism Research 39(4): 2211–2216. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2012.07.003.

10.

Chen

Tung

(2014) Developing an extended theory of planned behavior model to predict consumers’ intention to visit green hotels. International Journal of Hospitality Management 36(January): 221–230.

11.

Chen

(2010) The drivers of green brand equity: green brand image, green satisfaction, and green trust. Journal of Business Ethics 93(2): 307–319.

12.

Chen

Chang

(2013) Greenwash and green trust: the mediation effects of green consumer confusion and green perceived risk. Journal of Business Ethics 114(3): 489–500.

13.

Choi

Jang

Kandampully

(2015) Application of the extended VBN theory to understand consumers’ decisions about green hotels. International Journal of Hospitality Management 51(October): 87–95.

14.

Clow

James

(2014) Essentials of Marketing Research: Putting Research into Practice, 1st ed. London, England: Sage.

15.

Dang-Van

Vo-Thanh

Wang

, et al. (2023) Green hotel practices and consumer revisit intention: a mediating model of consumer promotion focus, brand identification, and green consumption value. Journal of Vacation Marketing 0(0): 135676672311646. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/13567667231164630.

16.

Dash

Paul

(2021) CB-SEM vs PLS-SEM methods for research in social sciences and technology forecasting. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 173(December): 121092.

17.

De Groot

Steg

(2009) Morality and prosocial behavior: the role of awareness, responsibility, and norms in the norm activation model. The Journal of Social Psychology 149(4): 425–449.

18.

De Groot

JIM

Steg

(2007) Value orientations and environmental beliefs in five countries: validity of an instrument to measure egoistic, altruistic and biospheric value orientations. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 38(3): 318–332.

19.

Dinis

Simões

Cruz

, et al. (2019) Understanding the impact of intentions in the adoption of local development practices by rural tourism hosts in Portugal. Journal of Rural Studies 72(December): 92–103.

20.

Doorn

Verhoef

(2015) Drivers of and barriers to organic purchase behavior. Journal of Retailing 91(3): 436–450.

21.

D’Souza

Apaolaza

Hartmann

, et al. (2021) Marketing for sustainability: travellers’ intentions to stay in green hotels. Journal of Vacation Marketing 27(2): 187–202.

22.

Eid

Agag

Shehawy

(2020) Understanding guests’ intention to visit green hotels. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research 45(3): 494–528.

23.

Fornell

Larcker

(1981) Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research 18(February): 39–50.

24.

Fuller

Simmering

Atinc

, et al. (2016) Common methods variance detection in business research. Journal of Business Research 69(8): 3192–3198.

25.

Gao

Mattila

(2016) The impact of option popularity, social inclusion/exclusion, and self-affirmation on consumers’ propensity to choose green hotels. Journal of Business Ethics 136(3): 575–585.

26.

Gil-Soto

Armas-Cruz

Morini-Marrero

, et al. (2019) Hotel guests’ perceptions of environmental friendly practices in social media. International Journal of Hospitality Management 78(May): 59–67.

27.

Green Hotels Association (2020) Why should hotel be green? Available at: http://greenhotels.com/index.php (accessed 06 December 2023).

28.

Grubor

Milicevic

Djokic

(2019) Social-psychological determinants of Serbian tourists’ choice of green rural hotels. Sustainability 11(23): 1–13.

29.

Guagnano

Stern

Dietz

(1995) Influences on attitude-behavior relationships: a natural experiment with curbside recycling. Environment and Behavior 27(5): 699–718.

30.

Hair

Black

WCB

Babin

, et al. (2014) Multivariate data analysis. In: Neuromarketing in India: Understanding the Indian Consumer, 7th ed. Pearson. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351269360.

31.

Han

(2015) Travelers’ pro-environmental behavior in a green lodging context: converging value-belief-norm theory and the theory of planned behavior. Tourism Management 47(April): 164–177. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2014.09.014.

32.

Han

(2020) Theory of green purchase behavior (TGPB): a new theory for sustainable consumption of green hotel and green restaurant products. Business Strategy and the Environment 29(6): 2815–2828.

33.

Han

Hsu

LTJ

Sheu

(2010) Application of the theory of planned behavior to green hotel choice: testing the effect of environmental friendly activities. Tourism Management 31(3): 325–334.

34.

Han

Lee

Trang

HLT

, et al. (2018a) Water conservation and waste reduction management for increasing guest loyalty and green hotel practices. International Journal of Hospitality Management 75(March): 58–66.

35.

Han

Olya

HGT

Cho

, et al. (2018b) Understanding museum vacationers’ eco-friendly decision-making process: strengthening the VBN framework. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 26(6): 855–872.

36.

Han

Yoon

(2015) Hotel customers’ environmentally responsible behavioral intention: impact of key constructs on decision in green consumerism. International Journal of Hospitality Management 45(February): 22–33.

37.

Bentler

(1999) Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal 6(1): 1–55.

38.

Huang

Lin

Lai

, et al. (2014) Environmental consciousness and green customer behavior: an examination of motivation crowding effect. International Journal of Hospitality Management 40(July): 139–149. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2014.04.006.

39.

Jaiswal

Kant

(2018) Green purchasing behaviour: a conceptual framework and empirical investigation of Indian consumers. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 41(March): 60–69. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2017.11.008.

40.

Jhawar

Kumar

Israel

(2023) Impact of materialism on tourists’ green purchase behavior: extended norm activation model perspective. Journal of Vacation Marketing 0(0): 135676672311783. https://doi.org/10.1177/13567667231178328.

41.

Kim

Lee

Fairhurst

(2017) The review of “green” research in hospitality, 2000-2014: current trends and future research directions. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 29(1): 226–247.

42.

Leroux

Pupion

(2018) Factors of adoption of eco-labelling in hotel industry. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 129(December): 194–209.

43.

Manganari

Dimara

Theotokis

(2016) Greening the lodging industry: current status, trends and perspectives for green value. Current Issues in Tourism 19(3): 223–242.

44.

Myung

McClaren

(2012) Environmentally related research in scholarly hospitality journals: current status and future opportunities. International Journal of Hospitality Management 31(4): 1264–1275.

45.

Nguyen

Lobo

Greenland

(2016) Pro-environmental purchase behaviour: the role of consumers’ biospheric values. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 33(November): 98–108.

46.

Nimri

Patiar

Kensbock

(2017) A green step forward: eliciting consumers’ purchasing decisions regarding green hotel accommodation in Australia. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 33(October): 43–50.

47.

Nimri

Patiar

Kensbock

, et al. (2020) Consumers’ intention to stay in green hotels in Australia: theorization and implications. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research 44(1): 149–168.

48.

Olya

HGT

Bagheri

Tümer

(2019) Decoding behavioural responses of green hotel guests: a deeper insight into the application of the theory of planned behaviour. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 31(6): 2509–2525. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM- 05-2018-0374.

49.

Paço

A do

Shiel

Alves

(2019) A new model for testing green consumer behaviour. Journal of Cleaner Production 207(January): 998–1006. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.10.105.

50.

Parguel

Benoît-Moreau

Larceneux

(2011) How sustainability ratings might deter “greenwashing”: a closer look at ethical corporate communication. Journal of Business Ethics 102(1): 15–28.

51.

Parker

Bhatti

Chwialkowska

, et al. (2022) Factors influencing green purchases: an emerging market perspective. Sustainable Development 31(2): 865–876.

52.

Preziosi

Tourais

Acampora

, et al. (2019) The role of environmental practices and communication on guest loyalty: examining EU-ecolabel in Portuguese hotels. Journal of Cleaner Production 237(10): 117659.

53.

Rahman

Reynolds

(2016) Predicting green hotel behavioral intentions using a theory of environmental commitment and sacrifice for the environment. International Journal of Hospitality Management 52(January): 107–116.

54.

Rahman

Reynolds

(2019) The influence of values and attitudes on green consumer behavior: a conceptual model of green hotel patronage. International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Administration 20(1): 47–74.

55.

Rahman

Reynolds

Svaren

(2012) How “green” are North American hotels? An exploration of low-cost adoption practices. International Journal of Hospitality Management 31(3): 720–727.

56.

Reid

Johnston

Patiar

(2017) Coastal resorts setting the pace: an evaluation of sustainable hotel practices. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 33(December): 11–22.

57.

Sadiq

Adil

Paul

(2022) Eco-friendly hotel stay and environmental attitude: a value-attitude-behaviour perspective. International Journal of Hospitality Management 100(January): 103094.

58.

Stern

(2000) Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. Journal of Social Issues 56(3): 407–424.

59.

Teng

Liu

(2015) Integrating altruism and the theory of planned behavior to predict patronage intention of a green hotel. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research 39(3): 299–315. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1096348012471383.

60.

Ting

Hsieh

Chang

, et al. (2019) Environmental consciousness and green customer behavior: the moderating roles of incentive mechanisms. Sustainability 11(3): 1–16.

61.

Trang

HLT

Lee

Han

(2019) How do green attributes elicit pro-environmental behaviors in guests? The case of green hotels in Vietnam. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing 36(1): 14–28.

62.

Verma

Chandra

(2018) An application of theory of planned behavior to predict young Indian consumers’ green hotel visit intention. Journal of Cleaner Production 172(3): 1152–1162.

63.

Verma

Chandra

Kumar

(2019) Values and ascribed responsibility to predict consumers’ attitude and concern towards green hotel visit intention. Journal of Business Research 96(October): 206–216.

64.

Wang

C-P

Zhang

Wong

PPW

, et al. (2023) Consumers’ green purchase intention to visit green hotels: a value-belief-norm theory perspective. Frontiers in Psychology 14(March): 1139116.

65.

Wang

, et al. (2018a) Extending the theory of planned behavior to understand consumers’ intentions to visit green hotels in the Chinese context. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 30(8): 2810–2825.

66.

Wang

Xue

, et al. (2018b) Green image and consumers’ word-of-mouth intention in the green hotel industry: the moderating effect of Millennials. Journal of Cleaner Production 181(20): 426–436.

67.

Wang

Wong

PPW

Alagas

(2020) Antecedents of green purchase behaviour: an examination of altruism and environmental knowledge. International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research 14(1): 63–82.

68.

Yadav

Balaji

Jebarajakirthy

(2019) How psychological and contextual factors contribute to travelers’ propensity to choose green hotels? International Journal of Hospitality Management 77(July): 385–395.

69.

Yarimoglu

Gunay

(2020) The extended theory of planned behavior in turkish customers’ intentions to visit green hotels. Business Strategy and the Environment 29(3): 1097–1108.