Towards green hospitality: exploring the consumer perceived value of pro-environmental star-graded accommodation

Tafadzwa Matiza (Tourism Research in Economics, Environs and Society (TREES) Research Unit, School of Tourism, North-West University – Potchefstroom Campus, Potchefstroom, South Africa)
Elmarie Slabbert (Tourism Research in Economics, Environs and Society (TREES) Research Unit, School of Tourism, North-West University – Potchefstroom Campus, Potchefstroom, South Africa)

Journal of Humanities and Applied Social Sciences

ISSN: 2632-279X

Article publication date: 8 October 2024

316

Abstract

Purpose

This paper explores the effect of pro-environmental measures and green behaviour of star-graded accommodation establishments on the consumer perceived value that domestic tourists associate with them. From our study’s perspective, value creation via green hospitality may promote more responsible and environmentally friendly consumptive behaviour amongst domestic tourists.

Design/methodology/approach

Designed as a cross-sectional deductive study, data were generated from an online panel sample of 440 South African domestic tourists. The hypotheses were tested using SmartPLS 4 via partial least squares–structural equation modelling. Further, multi-group analysis assessed and exposed gender-based differences.

Findings

The findings imply that green hospitality positively influences the value perceptions of tourists. More in-depth analyses indicate gender-based heterogeneity in the effect of green hospitality aspects on consumer perceived values. Our findings establish pro-environmentalism within the accommodation sector as an approach to initiating pro-environmental behaviour change through value creation.

Originality/value

Our study extends the theory around pro-environmental behaviour and provides empirical evidence from domestic tourists as an under-researched population within the debate around tourism sustainability and green hospitality. The study sheds new light on the importance of supply-side green interventions in tourist behaviour and highlights the potential influence of gender differences. It explores this in the context of an emerging tourism destination in the Global South.

Keywords

Citation

Matiza, T. and Slabbert, E. (2024), "Towards green hospitality: exploring the consumer perceived value of pro-environmental star-graded accommodation", Journal of Humanities and Applied Social Sciences, Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print. https://doi.org/10.1108/JHASS-07-2024-0123

Publisher

:

Emerald Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2024, Tafadzwa Matiza and Elmarie Slabbert

License

Published in Journal of Humanities and Applied Social Sciences. Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode


Introduction

Accommodation is a vital element in the tourism value chain and a key component of the overall tourism experience (Filimonau et al., 2022; Nunkoo et al., 2020). Due to a paradigm shift in crucial tourism stakeholder (governments, policymakers, tourism organisations and residents) views towards more sustainable travel and tourism, a significant concern of the ongoing green revolution in the accommodation sector has become the economic viability of going green and, more significantly, the creation of value for green-conscious consumer segments (Dolnicar, 2020; Durán-Román et al., 2021; Robinot and Giannelloni, 2010). However, despite the commitment of the accommodation sector to developing and implementing pro-environmental measures and practising green behaviour, not all tourists appear to reciprocate or assimilate this green behaviour (Kim et al., 2021). An estimated 8% of all global greenhouse emissions are attributed to travel and tourism activity (Dolnicar, 2020), of which at least 20% of these travel and tourism-related emissions can be ascribed to accommodation-based (primarily hotel) activity (Merli et al., 2019). While concerted tourist engagement may reduce their psychological distance from destinations’ environmental concerns (Wang and Jiao, 2024), prior studies (Dolnicar, 2020; Han et al., 2011; Hsiao et al., 2014) have associated the hotel sector with a corresponding upsurge in water use (up to 300% more per person than their average use when at home); excessive electricity consumption; and solid waste generation at destinations.

When tourists travel, their sometimes-excessive, consumptive behaviour (Cooper et al., 2024; Dolnicar, 2020) implies that tourism-related accommodation establishments have a dual role as an essential pillar of the tourism value chain. First, they must change how they offer their services to ensure the sustainability of contemporary tourism through their “green” policy measures and practices, and second, they must endeavour to simultaneously enhance guests’ pro-environmental behaviour via providing a green hospitality experience (Kim et al., 2021). “Green” or green-conscious accommodation establishments are hospitality service providers committed to establishing and implementing pro-environmental measures to minimise the establishment’s environmental effects via resource-saving and solid waste mitigation measures (Berezan et al., 2013; Hsiao et al., 2014). Within the scope of this study, pro-environmental measures primarily seek to guide product and service provision and, for the most part, manage and mitigate the potentially negative impact of tourist (guest) consumptive behaviour on the environment (Wu et al., 2021). It follows that in line with established pro-environmental measures, green behaviour refers to an accommodation establishment’s subsequent resource-saving, recycling and reuse activities (Hsiao et al., 2014).

As the primary consumers of tourism resources, the impact of tourists on the environment is a critical aspect of the ongoing debate around tourism, its contribution to climate change via resource consumption (fossil fuels during travel, water, energy and resource other consumption) and the overall sustainability of destinations (Merli et al., 2019; Verma and Chandra, 2016; Wang and Jiao, 2024). Within the accommodation context, the green product experience emanating from the combination of pro-environmental measures and the green behaviour of accommodation establishments [or green hospitality in the context of this study] influences tourists' value perceptions (Sampene et al., 2024). Consumer Perceived Value (CPV) may be characterised as “consumers' overall assessment of product utility based on the perception they are given and received” (Zhang et al., 2021, p. 23). As a multidimensional construct, CPV theory was suitable to explore the value perceptions of guests as it acknowledges the heterogeneity of guest experience and can be adapted to support a composite scale that can adequately measure experience derived value on a broad spectrum; hence, CPV is critical in predicting consumer behaviour, and within green hospitality studies (El-Adly, 2019; Saut and Bie, 2022). CPV has been explored in the biospheric context – green value and green perceived value (Majeed et al., 2023; Sampene et al., 2024). Our study, however, conceptualises CPV from the conventional cognitive (functional and economic) and affect (social and emotional) perspectives of value (Gallarza and Gil Saura, 2020; Koller et al., 2011).

Green hospitality has become a critical aspect of the accommodation servicescape (Nisar et al., 2022; Nurul Alam et al., 2023), yet little is still known about green hospitality as an antecedent of guest participation in pro-environmental behaviour in response to accommodation-based green interventions. While contemporary studies (Bagheri et al., 2020; Hu et al., 2011; Kim et al., 2021; Wang and Jiao, 2024) have established the importance of accommodation-based green interventions to sustainable tourism, research into the impact of accommodation supplier-initiated pro-environmental interventions on tourist (guest) CPV formation also remains nascent (Cooper et al., 2024; Hu et al., 2011; Worsfold et al., 2016). Further, even when considering the limited extant international studies on green hospitality and CPV, domestic tourists have been the subject of comparatively limited academic research within the context of green accommodation and choice behaviour (Behera et al., 2023; Trinh and Thuy, 2024). This is despite domestic tourism being the global primary tourism typology – implying that domestic tourists may have a more pronounced environmental impact than international tourism activity (Gössling and Peeters, 2015). The role of domestic tourism in the resilience of South African tourism post-pandemic is well-established, and the literature (Matiza and Kruger, 2022; Nyikana and Bama, 2023) illustrates the evolving role and importance of domestic tourism in South Africa given the country’s overreliance on international tourism demand pre-the-pandemic – particularly post-crisis demand recovery (Matiza and Kruger, 2022).

Notwithstanding the limited literature on domestic tourism and pro-environmental behaviour in African countries, there are concerns about the prevalence of maladaptive behaviour towards the environment, indicating the generally low adoption of pro-environmental behaviour by Africans (see Ifegbesan et al., 2022) and other emerging markets in general (Filimonau et al., 2022). This discrepancy between consumers having a conscious concern for the environment and not matching this concern with the required pro-environmental consumptive behaviour may be referred to as the “green gap” (Do and Do, 2024; Filimonau et al., 2022). Moreover, researchers (Han et al., 2011; Wu et al., 2021) have intimated the general need for more academic inquiry into the influence of individual characteristics such as experience and the socio-demographic profile on consumers’ pro-environmental behaviour. Despite the consensus that demographic characteristics significantly influence attitudes and behaviour towards green products, scant studies (Koller et al., 2011; Vicente-Molina et al., 2018; Wu et al., 2021) have established heterogeneity in the impact of tourists’ demographic profiles on pro-environmental behaviour uptake.

This study explores whether the pro-environmental measures and green behaviour of star-graded accommodation establishments influence consumer perceived value for domestic tourists. Our study assumes that enhanced CPV associated with green-oriented star-graded accommodation may subsequently enhance the pro-environmental behaviour of domestic tourists as guests (Hu et al., 2011). This study builds on Filimonau et al. (2022) and van Valkengoed et al.’s (2022) work, which calls for more academic inquiry into the underlying psychological mechanisms influencing tourists’ pro-environmental behaviour. The context of our study is the South African star-graded accommodation sector and the value perceptions of domestic tourists resident in South Africa as potential guests towards green-oriented star-graded accommodations that have established pro-environmental measures and practised green behaviour as part of their product offering. Our study goes on to probe the potential role of gender in the value perceptions of said guests. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, the direct and interaction effects of pro-environmental measures and green behaviour of star-graded accommodations on tourists’ consumer perceived value towards them have yet to be empirically tested. Further, the two determinants proposed in our model have yet to be explored within the context of domestic tourists' CPV from a Global South perspective, more so while determining the potential significance of gender-based differences.

Literature review

The supporting theory

The present study is guided by Bandura’s (1986, 1991) Social Cognitive Theory (SCT), which posits that humans have agency and that the ability of individuals to learn or engage in specific behaviour is susceptible to the individual’s interactive experience, external environmental stimuli and the expected behaviour itself. Sampene et al. (2024) identify self-efficacy and the positive desirable results as critical outcomes of SCT-oriented pro-environmental behaviour. Hence, within the context of this study, SCT aids in better understanding the influence of pro-environmental measures on the (service-driven) green behaviour of star-graded accommodation establishments, more so how the interaction of the two variables influences value perceptions. Prior hospitality and tourism studies have drawn on SCT to model the influence of pro-environmental measures on the green behaviour of tourism service providers (Nurul Alam et al., 2023; Sampene et al., 2024) and consumer (tourist) behaviour (Ma et al., 2024; Wu et al., 2021), as well as explain potential gender differences in the uptake and practice of eco-friendly behaviour (Roxas and Marte, 2022; Sawitri et al., 2015), and value perceptions associated with green products and services (Majeed et al., 2023).

Consumer perceived value in green tourism accommodation

Service quality, customer satisfaction and loyalty are critical antecedents to accommodation establishments' competitiveness, customer attraction and retention (Nunkoo et al., 2020). It follows that if value perception in tourism is a precursor of consumer satisfaction and loyalty (Gallarza and Gil Saura, 2020), the determination of CPV would be critical to the overall competitiveness of tourism accommodation. Stemming from the theory of consumer behaviour (Zeithaml, 1988), CPV is a multidimensional construct that acknowledges how consumers perceive value within the hospitality context, which is situational and predicated on their experience (El-Adly, 2019). To this end, within the specific scope of tourism-oriented accommodation, CPV is associated with the experience of the consumer as a guest, where knowledge of the accommodation’s pro-environmental policies and subsequent green hospitality experience influence the value perceptions associated with the establishment (Zhang et al., 2021).

Studies have alluded to the importance of green value and green perceived value in influencing consumers’ consumptive behaviour (Majeed et al., 2023; Sampene et al., 2024). For instance, based on their data mining study on CPV and purchase behaviour, Zhang et al. (2021) established that consumers’ perceived value affected their intention to (re)visit luxury or green hotels. Thus indicating the potential significance of the value creation – pro-environmental behaviour adoption nexus. However, notwithstanding the extant literature (Kim et al., 2021; Nisar et al., 2022; Verma and Chandra, 2016, 2018) that attributes pro-environmental behaviour in the hospitality accommodation sector to enhancing environmental sustainability-oriented behaviour, our study considers and measures the “generic” value dimensions in overall value perception formation in both green and non-green-conscious tourists as potential guests (Berezan et al., 2013; El-Adly, 2019). As a multi-dimensional construct, CPV within the star-graded accommodation context may be viewed through the lenses of functional (accommodation quality aspects), emotional (intrinsic affect aspects emanating from the hospitality experience), economic (price-oriented value for money aspects) and social (reference group-oriented norms) value (El-Adly, 2019; Hu et al., 2011; Koller et al., 2011; Prebensen and Rosengren, 2016; Saut and Bie, 2022).

Pro-environmental measures and tourist behaviour towards accommodation facilities

Consumers increasingly expect accommodation facilities such as hotels to implement measures to protect the environment (Berezan et al., 2013; Hsiao et al., 2014; Merli et al., 2019). Deemed as “pro-environmental lodging properties which implement different green practices such as saving water and energy, reducing solid waste, and recycling and reusing durable service items” (Merli et al., 2019:170), green-oriented accommodation establishments are a consequence of increasing green-oriented consumerism (Verma and Chandra, 2018). Prior studies (Han et al., 2011; Hsiao et al., 2014; Nisar et al., 2022; Wang and Jiao, 2024) have determined that mitigating the negative impact of resource consumption via formal interventions (pro-environmental measures) such as environmental management systems (EMS) is critical to the sustainability of the tourism-oriented accommodation sector. Such EMS systems include developing and adopting policy measures that include waste management, biological diversity management, sustainable tourism policy advocacy and related corporate social responsibility (Cabral and Jabbour, 2020; Kim et al., 2018, 2021).

Studies (Han et al., 2011) have shown that between 16% and up to 90% of surveyed hotel guests prefer to stay in eco-friendly hotels, resulting in accommodation establishments increasingly adapting their product offerings to meet the growing demand for sustainable, eco-friendly tourism products and services. For instance, the symbiotic relationship between going green and the competitiveness of hotels are vital elements in customer retention and gaining significant market share within the fast-emerging “sustainability-sensitive” accommodation guest segments (Han et al., 2011; Verma and Chandra, 2018). Moreover, from a consumer behaviour perspective, green consumption should ideally result in positive, responsive behaviour (evaluation, perceptions and beliefs) towards offerings and organisations that have embedded green psychological benefits (Majeed et al., 2023). Studies have, thus far, established a correlation between the pro-environmental measures of accommodation establishments and guest satisfaction and loyalty (Merli et al., 2019), (re)visit intention (Filimonau et al., 2022; Verma and Chandra, 2018), and more pertinently, consumers’ value perceptions (Majeed et al., 2023; Robinot and Giannelloni, 2010) and favourability towards specific accommodation establishments (Verma and Chandra, 2016). The subsequent hypotheses tested are,

H1.

Pro-environmental measures influence the consumer perceived [H1a] emotional, [H1b] functional, [H1c] social value, and [H1d] value for money of domestic tourists towards star-graded accommodation establishments.

Antecedents and effects of accommodation “green behaviour”

Within the scope of our study, the green behavioural practices of star-graded accommodation establishments include the application of green principles, waste recycling, energy and water-saving activities (Berezan et al., 2013; Merli et al., 2019; Verma and Chandra, 2016), and food waste limitation as part of the accommodation servicescape (Hsiao et al., 2014). Therefore, green behaviour in the accommodation sector is “behaviour which leads to positive effects on the environment or reduces negative effects” (Dolnicar, 2020). Research has established the positive causal effect of organisation-initiated pro-environmental measures such as corporate environmental responsibility on employee and organisational environmental performance (Sampene et al., 2024). Moreover, the extant literature determined that the development of EMS (Kim et al., 2018, 2021), supported by proactive pro-environmental management policy implementation (Bagheri et al., 2020; Hsiao et al., 2014), has a positive effect on the green “behaviour” or practices of accommodation establishments.

A comparative study between green and non-green-oriented hotels in Pakistan showed that developing and implementing a green-oriented management policy enhanced hotel environmental performance via highly motivated and efficacious employees committed to green behaviour (Nisar et al., 2022). A study by Nurul Alam et al. (2023) establishes a positive correlation between the green human resource management practices of selected Nigerian hotels and the green-oriented behaviour of employees in their workplaces, thus enhancing the green performance of their respective hotels. It follows that akin to established individual biospheric value(s) – which include green value and green perceived value (Majeed et al., 2023) – the assessment of value induced by pro-environmental behaviour remains paramount (Sampene et al., 2024). Studies have extended the positive effects of green behaviour in accommodation establishments to value creation for guests (Robinot and Giannelloni, 2010). To this end, a study in the American hotel sector by Han et al. (2011) concluded that pro-environmental practices translate into comparative advantages, including boosts in employee morale and performance, profitability and, more pertinently, enhanced stakeholder appeal. Merli et al. (2019) caution that discord between the development of pro-environmental measures and the green behaviour (practice) of accommodation establishments has been found to have a negative effect on the behaviour of consumers. Therefore, the following hypotheses are tested,

H2.

Pro-environmental measures influence star-graded accommodation establishments’ perceived green behaviour.

H3.

The perceived green behaviour of star-graded accommodation establishments influences the consumer’s perceived [H3a] emotional, [H3b] functional, [H3c] social value, and [H3d] value for money of domestic tourists.

Mediation hypotheses

Social Cognitive Theory (Bandura, 1986, 1991) supports direct relationships between the modelled variables. The literature has established that developing and implementing green-oriented EMS is an antecedent of green behaviour in the hospitality sector (Bagheri et al., 2020; Hsiao et al., 2014; Nurul Alam et al., 2023). It has also been determined that consumers’ knowledge that an accommodation establishment is pro-environmental in its management practices influences the choice behaviour of guests (Sampene et al., 2024; Wang and Jiao, 2024). Studies have also shown that green hospitality or behaviour offers guests an experience that may influence their pro-environmental behaviour (El-Adly, 2019; Zhang et al., 2021) and value perceptions towards an accommodation establishment (Majeed et al., 2023; Robinot and Giannelloni, 2010; Verma and Chandra, 2016, 2018). Given the literature, it is plausible that a mediation relationship may exist between pro-environmental measures, green behaviour, and the consumer perceived value of domestic tourists towards star-graded accommodation establishments. Hence, the following meditation hypotheses were formulated,

H4.

The perceived green behaviour of star-graded accommodation establishments mediated the relationship between pro-environmental measures and consumer perceived [H4a] emotional, [H4b] functional, [H4c] social value, and [H4d] value for money of domestic tourists.

Based on the extant literature, Figure 1 illustrates the study’s Conceptual Framework.

The role of gender in pro-environmentalism in tourism

Social Cognitive Theory (SCT) acknowledges the dichotomy in pro-environmental behaviour between individuals with high environmental efficacy versus those with low efficacy perception (Sawitri et al., 2015). According to Sampene et al. (2024), this efficacy relates to individuals' social cognition (information processing, analysis and utility) as a predictive psychological mechanism. The role of gender in influencing beliefs, attitudes, behaviour, and opinions points to its potential significance in explaining pro-environmental behaviour (Ifegbesan et al., 2022; Xiao and McCright, 2015). Hence, socio-demographic characteristics, such as gender, thus become critical to explaining and predicting human-responsive behaviour to environmentalism from a social perspective (Vicente-Molina et al., 2018). While there is acknowledged heterogeneity in the effect and impact of gender in how consumers respond to green products and interventions, studies have generally established that gender-based differences in green behaviour may be attributed to societal gender roles (Koller et al., 2011; Sawitri et al., 2015; Wu et al., 2021; Xiao and McCright, 2015). In their overview of the contemporary literature on gender and pro-environmentalism (Vicente-Molina et al., 2018), they observe that females tend to be more responsive in the private sphere (energy saving, recycling, purchase of organic products) than males who are more responsive in the public sphere (policy formulation, advocacy, implementation).

When exploring the effect of gender on the CPV of vehicle brand consumers, Koller et al. (2011) found that ecological aspects, such as environmental friendliness, had different effects on the value perceptions of men compared to women drivers. A six-country African study found that, on aggregate, females were more likely to be positively inclined to pro-environmental behaviour than males (Ifegbesan et al., 2022). More pertinently, within the green accommodation context, findings from a study of American hotel patrons by Han et al. (2011) were consistent with prior empirical evidence of the propensity of women to be more environmentally conscious – establishing that when compared to male guests, females were more susceptible to the influence of green hotel practices. In conclusion, women were more likely to visit, pay more for, and be more likely to recommend green accommodation products. In India, Verma and Chandra (2016) found heterogeneity in the effect of hotel green behaviour on guests based on gender. Their study indicated that the influence of green behaviour attributes such as energy efficiency and waste management was more pronounced for males compared to females. Further, the influence of pro-environmental measures such as green certification was also more pronounced amongst male hotel guests than female hotel guests. Based on the preceding discussion, the following hypothesis was formulated,

H5.

There are discernable gender-based differences in the value perceptions of domestic tourists as consumers.

Methodology

The grading of accommodation establishments in South Africa is based on the Tourism Grading Council of South Africa’s (TGSA) five-star-based accommodation classification system, where 1-star is the lowest rating and 5-star is the highest (Nunkoo et al., 2020). As part of a broader study assessing South Africa’s star-graded accommodation, an online study was conducted between the 1st of October and the 1st of November 2024 to survey the perceptions of domestic tourists towards star-graded accommodation establishments in South Africa. A self-administered survey was administered to a pre-recruited panel of South African consumers via research firm InfoQuest Africa (https://infoquest.africa/). Screening questions ensured that only respondents who used paid accommodation when they engaged in travel and tourism and were aware of the grading system of accommodation establishments participated in the study. Data analysed in this study were generated from n = 440 South Africans.

Measuring instrument

A closed-ended online questionnaire was developed and published on the QuestionPro platform, and the survey link was distributed to the panel. Scales in the composite questionnaire were adapted from the literature, with the instrument undergoing an expert review process by a tourism scientific committee and ethics committee, respectively. Pro-environmental measures are the independent variable, measured based on the literature (Kim et al., 2018, 2021; Verma and Chandra, 2016). Responses were recorded based on a 5-point Likert scale of the extent of importance for their accommodation choice ranging between (1) “No extent” and (5) “Not applicable”. The Green Behaviour of the accommodation is measured as the mediation variable based on five items adapted from the literature (Bagheri et al., 2020; Kim et al., 2018). Responses were recorded on a 5-point Likert scale of importance ranging between (1) “Not at all important” and (5) “Extremely important”. CPV of star-graded accommodation was measured as the outcome variable based on 12 items adapted from the literature (El-Adly, 2019; Hu et al., 2011; Prebensen and Rosengren, 2016; Saut and Bie, 2022) to measure Consumer Perceived: Emotional Value, Functional Value, Social Value, and Value for Money based on three items each. Responses were recorded on a 5-point Likert agreement scale ranging between (1) “Strongly disagree” and (5) “Strongly agree”.

Model specification and data analysis

The study adopted the partial least squares-structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM) approach applied by Nunkoo et al. (2020) and Nisar et al. (2022). SmartPLS 4 software (Ringle et al., 2024) developed, estimated, and assessed the reflective conceptual model (Figure 1). Unlike covariance-based-SEM (CB-SEM), PLS-SEM accommodates the causal-predictive model approach that optimises the theory and predicts the endogenous construct(s) under study. Four key steps were followed. First, Measurement Invariance of Composite Models (MICOM) established the invariance in the data; second, the measurement model determined the reliability and validity of the model; third, PLS-SEM tested the direct and in-direct hypotheses, followed by Multi-Group Analysis (MGA) to compare the gender-based differences in the data (Gao et al., 2024; Nisar et al., 2022; Nunkoo et al., 2020). PLS-SEM, which is Ordinary Least Squares regression-based, was preferred over Covariance Based (CB-SEM) approaches such as LISREL or AMOS. This preference was based on the PLS-SEM approach accommodating (1) the model’s focus on explaining and predicting CPV as the primary latent variable, (2) the complexity of the model, which included direct and indirect hypothesised relationships, (3) the intricacy of modelling reflective constructs with better reliability and validity statistics, and (4) PLS-SEM is recommended for testing composite measurement models over CB-SEM (Dash and Paul, 2021; Filimonau et al., 2022).

Results

Respondent socio-demographic profile

There was an almost equal distribution (male = 49.32% and female = 50.00%) in the gender profile of the respondents (Supplementary Data Table A1). Most respondents (46.47%) were aged between 25 and 34 years old and were primarily (69.32%) employed in South Africa’s private sector at the time of the survey. Most respondents (53.41%) resided in the Gauteng Province (the economic hub of South Africa) and indicated that they usually travelled with their partner (28.34%) or family – adults and children (21.53%).

Measurement invariance of composite model (MICOM)

The study adopted the three-step measurement invariance of composite models (MICOM) as part of Multi-Group Analysis in PLS-SEM. Since SmartPLS4 assumes configural invariance (Ringle et al., 2024), the MICOM (Supplementary Data Tables A2–A4) reported statistical differences in the compositional invariance (Step 2), the equality of composite mean values (Step 3b) and variances (Step 3b). The MICOM established partial measurement invariance, confirming that differences across groups were not attributable to differences in the meaning of the same constructs (Henseler et al., 2015); hence, standardised path coefficients could only be compared across the groups via separate group-specific model estimations (Gao et al., 2024; Nisar et al., 2022). Considering the minimum recommended threshold of 100 cases/observations per group for MGA (Leong et al., 2024), two gender-based groups were established and modelled – to complement the Complete sample (n = 440): Males (n = 217) and Females (n = 220).

Reflective measurement model

Common Method Bias (CMB <50%) was not a concern in the data, as Harman’s single-factor test reported CMB = 31.77% (Filimonau et al., 2022; Gao et al., 2024). As shown in Table 1, the Kurtosis (between − 10 to + 10) and Skewness (between − 3 and +3) statistics across all sample groups ranged between 0.300 and 7.728 and −1.518 and −1.181, respectively (Griffin and Steinbrecher, 2013). The Outer Loadings (Table 1) across all groups exceeded the 0.700 threshold, indicating sufficient strength between the observed variables and their corresponding latent variables (Saeed et al., 2022). Further, the variance inflation factor (VIF <5) in Table 1 shows that the VIF statistics indicated small to moderate correlation across all groups. Hence, all were below the accepted threshold, and multicollinearity was not a concern with the data (Camisón and Forés, 2015; Dedeoğlu et al., 2023; Latif et al., 2022).

Table 2 summarises the validity and reliability statistics across all sample groups. Construct Reliability (α > 0.700), Composite Reliability (CR > 0.700) and Convergent validity (Average Variance Extracted: AVE >0.500) were above the accepted thresholds (Fornell and Larcker, 1981; Hair et al., 2013) and were confirmed across all the sample groups.

The Heterotrait-Monotrait Ratio of Correlations (HTMT) and the Fornell and Larcker criteria were used to assess the discriminate validity of the respective sample group models. The respective Complete, Male and Female models (Supplementary Data Table A5 and Table A6) reported HTMT statistics of <0.90 (Mengzhen et al., 2022). They indicated the square root of AVE > inter-construct correlations (Fornell and Larcker, 1981).

Structural model

The proposed hypotheses were assessed by a PLS-SEM based on Bootstrapping, bias-corrected with 10,000 test samples at a 97.5% confidence level. Table 3 summarises the three sample models' explanatory power (R2). The R2 statistics for the Complete (R2: 0.075–0.266), Male (R2: 0.032–0.260), and Female (R2: 0.102–0.254) samples reported coefficients ranging from weak to medium.

The predictive relevance (Q2 > 0.000) of the models was also assessed (Table 3), with all the respective models Complete (Q2: 0.058–0.260), Male (Q2: 0.021–0.289), and Female (Q2: 0.079–0.239) reporting significant predictive power (Hair et al., 2013). Table 4 shows that the f2 statistics ranged between 0.023 and 0.367 for the Complete sample, 0.005 and 0.413 for the Male sample, and 0.012 and 0.348 for the Female sample, indicating a small to large effect (Cohen, 1988).

Direct hypotheses

As shown in Table 4 (see Supplementary Data Table A7, for supporting Total effects), all the direct relationships were statistically significant in the Complete sample case. Therefore, hypotheses H1a-d, H2 and H3a-d were accepted. In the case of the Male sample, all the direct relationships were statistically significant except the direct effect of GRN on CPF (H3b: β = 0.079, t = 0.727, p = 0.467). Hence, hypotheses H1a-d, H2 and H3a, H3c and H3d were accepted, whereas hypothesis H3b was rejected. In the context of the Female sample, all the direct relationships were statistically significant except the direct effect of GRN on CPE (H3a: β = 0.118, t = 1.398, p = 0.162). Hence, hypotheses H1a-d, H2 and H3b, H3c and H3d were accepted, whereas hypothesis H3a was rejected.

The mediating effect of green behaviour was tested; the p-value indicated statistical significance, and the confidence index (lower limit – upper limit) did not include zero (Hair et al., 2013). Green behaviour had a mediating effect in all the hypothesised relationships (Table 5); hence, in the Complete sample, hypotheses H4a-d were accepted.

Within the gender-based groups (Table 5), green behaviour mediated all the hypothesised relationships in the Male sample except for the hypothesised mediation effect of green behaviour in the relationship between pro-environmental measures and consumer perceived functional value (H4b: β = 0.043, t = 0.699, p = 0.485). Hence, hypotheses H4a, H4c and H4d were accepted, while hypothesis H4b was rejected. In the context of the Female sample, all the mediation hypotheses were statistically significant except for the hypothesised mediation effect of green behaviour in the relationship between pro-environmental measures and consumer perceived emotional value (H4a: β = 0.060, t = 1.320, p = 0.187). Hence, hypotheses H4b, H4c and H4d were accepted, while hypothesis H4a was rejected.

Multi-group analysis (MGA)

Due to the established partial invariance, standardised path coefficients were compared across the Complete Male and Female groups via separate group-specific model estimations as part of Partial Least Squares – Multi-Group Analysis (PLS-MGA) (Gao et al., 2024). As shown in Table 6, the influence of green behaviour on consumer-perceived emotional value is stronger in males (β = 0.224, p < 0.05) than in females (β = 0.118, p < 0.05). In comparison, the influence of green behaviour on consumer-perceived functional value is stronger for females (β = 0.199, p < 0.05) compared to males (β = 0.079, p < 0.05).

Further, the influence of pro-environmental measures on consumer perceived functional value is stronger in females (β = 0.243, p < 0.05) than in males (β = 0.151, p < 0.05). At the same time, the influence of pro-environmental measures on consumer-perceived social value is stronger in females (β = 0.239, p < 0.05) than in males (β = 0.185, p < 0.05). Hence, hypothesis H5 was accepted since there are discernable gender-based differences in the value perceptions of domestic tourists as consumers.

Discussion

The study aimed to explore whether the pro-environmental measures and green behaviour of star-graded accommodation establishments create value for tourists – assuming that enhanced CPV associated with green-oriented star-graded accommodation may subsequently enhance the pro-environmental behaviour of tourists as guests. As it emerged from our findings, in line with the extant literature (El-Adly, 2019; Majeed et al., 2023; Verma and Chandra, 2016, 2018; Zhang et al., 2021); generally, domestic tourist awareness of the pro-environmental measures established by an accommodation establishment positively influenced their consumer perceived [emotional, functional, social, and value for money] value perception. Furthermore, it was determined across all groups that pro-environmental measures influence the green behaviour of star-graded accommodation establishments, thus corroborating prior research findings (Kim et al., 2018, 2021; Nisar et al., 2022; Nurul Alam et al., 2023; Sampene et al., 2024), that the development of green-oriented EMS and other related policies influenced the pro-environmental performance, among other things the green behaviour of hospitality entities such as hotels and other accommodation services. Generally, the green behaviour of star-graded accommodation establishments (Complete sample) positively influenced the value perceptions of domestic tourists across the consumer-perceived value spectrum. Hence, supporting the extant prior research (Zhang et al., 2021; Majeed et al., 2023; Sampene et al., 2024) that green-oriented hospitality product experiences influence the attitudes of accommodation guests; however, what is significant is that this notion is extended to domestic tourists as guests.

To the author’s knowledge, no prior study has examined the mediating effect of green behaviour in the relationship between domestic tourists’ awareness of pro-environmental measures at a star-graded accommodation establishment and their value perception towards the establishment. However, anecdotal evidence suggests that our findings corroborate the extant literature that suggests that green consumption translates to psychological benefits, including what is termed the warm glow- (akin to consumer-perceived emotional value), self-expressive- (akin to consumer-perceived social value) and in the accommodation context, experience- (akin to consumer-perceived functional value) benefits (Hu et al., 2011; Majeed et al., 2023). Therefore, without specific previous studies, our findings that the green behaviour of star-graded accommodation establishments positively mediates the relationship between pro-environmental measures and the value perceptions of domestic tourists across the perceived value spectrum explored in this study appear novel from a Global South perspective.

Significant gender-based variances emerged from the study. Regarding the PLS-SEM direct effects (Table 4), the green behaviour of star-graded accommodation establishments did not influence the consumer perceived functional value in male domestic tourists as it did in females. Whereas green behaviour did not influence, female domestic tourists’ consumer perceived emotional value associated with star-graded, as it did males. Subsequently, these differences extend to the mediation effect of green behaviour (Table 5). The MGA (Table 6) confirms these gender-based differences in the effect of green behaviour. The literature (Wu et al., 2021; Vicente-Molina et al., 2018; Xiao and McCright, 2015) suggests that these discrepancies may be attributed to males not being mainly oriented towards their sphere in their pro-environmental behaviour. Hence, their potential disassociation of the green experience from the behaviour of establishments from the product quality-oriented value perceptions. While women are more practical and oriented towards their surroundings, and thus, they tend to value green experiences from a more objective than idiosyncratic, emotional perspective (Han et al., 2011; Vicente-Molina et al., 2018).

Intriguingly, in our study, female domestic tourists tended to be more socially and functionally susceptible regarding value perceptions than males when considering the influence of pro-environmental measures. This may be attributed to the pervasive gender roles (Koller et al., 2011; Sawitri et al., 2015) in society and their impact on subsequent responsiveness to pro-environmental behaviour. Contrary to Verma and Chandra’s (2016) observations, males were more inclined to the effect of environmental measures such as green-oriented certifications and formal practices of accommodation establishments. In our study, females are more responsive to how pro-environmental measures influence the product and experience quality at star-graded accommodations that have established energy-saving and recycling policies. Some of the literature (Ifegbesan et al., 2022; Vicente-Molina et al., 2018) asserts that females are more likely to be concerned with social status and social acceptability via pro-environmental behaviour than males. In sum, our findings support the notion of heterogeneity in the influence of gender on the subsequent pro-environmental behaviour of domestic tourists based on their perceived value (Cooper et al., 2024; Ifegbesan et al., 2022).

Theoretical implications

The study extends the emerging extent of literature on resident environmental citizenship as a critical part of the debate around the sustainability of tourism destinations (Cao et al., 2024). Our study acknowledges that while the focus of contemporary empirical academic enquiry has been on the environmental impact of inbound tourists (Cooper et al., 2024) or locals as residents (Cao et al., 2024), the role of domestic tourists in the sustainability of tourism destinations is still relatively unknown compared to international tourist studies. Hence, our findings extend theory and empirical evidence to an under-researched population within the sustainability of tourism. Some literature (Sawitri et al., 2015) bemoans the dearth of studies applying social-cognitive theory (SCT) to explain pro-environmental behaviour. The empirical evidence from our study provides an enhanced understanding of SCT and strengthens its relevance in explaining and predicting pro-environmental behaviour (Sampene et al., 2024). Moreover, SCT delineates the effects of the gender of domestic tourists on the value perceptions induced by green hospitality experiences in star-graded accommodation establishments (Verma and Chandra, 2016; Vicente-Molina et al., 2018). Hence, this contributes to the theory of hospitality. The study also addresses the discernible knowledge gap in the literature (Ifegbesan et al., 2022) by providing empirical evidence that African star-graded accommodation establishments developing pro-environmental measures and employing green behaviour influence the value perceptions of domestic tourists. Beyond the extant literature (Majeed et al., 2023; Sampene et al., 2024; Roxas and Marte, 2022; Sawitri et al., 2015, we advance theory by modelling the influence of gender on CPV within the context of pro-environmental behaviour and provide a nuanced understanding of conventional SCT and CPV theory from a gender-differences perspective.

Practical implications

This study offers hospitality and tourism practitioners and policymakers in South Africa some critical insights into the importance and influence of green hospitality in mitigating the potential adverse effects of resource consumption and promoting pro-environmental behaviour (green tourism) amongst domestic tourists. Considering the lag identified by the literature (Filimonau et al., 2022; Ifegbesan et al., 2022) in adopting pro-environmental behaviour in African countries compared to the West, two critical practical implications emerge. First, our study’s perspective is that determining the CPV associated with green hospitality as a hybrid of pro-environmental measures and establishments’ green behaviour is an antecedent to subsequent pro-environmental behaviour (see Berezan et al., 2013; El-Adly, 2019; Nunkoo et al., 2020) induced by domestic tourists’ experiences at green-oriented accommodation establishments (see Zhang et al., 2021). To address the potential green gap in Africa, star-graded accommodation establishments may engage in more concerted green hospitality as an interventionist social marketing approach to initiate domestic tourist behaviour change via value creation. This approach would entail aligning pricing, product, place and promotional aspects and have implications for hotels and other similar establishments in the accommodation sector. A bespoke green-social marketing mix would be developed and integrated into the accommodation experience.

Our study confirms heterogeneity in the influence of pro-environmental measures and green behaviour in the value perceptions of domestic tourists towards star-graded accommodation (see Vicente-Molina et al., 2018; Xiao and McCright, 2015). Acknowledging gender-based differences in perceived value creation challenges traditional assumptions and illustrates the importance of recognising the value of gender-based market analysis (see Koller et al., 2011; Sawitri et al., 2015; Wu et al., 2021). Implementing inclusive green hospitality initiatives such as providing tourists/guests with real-time feedback on their consumptive behaviour, such as water use or energy saving based on differentiated (male vs. female) previous guest behaviour; reducing plate sizes at buffets and incorporating signage that encourages multiple visits to the buffet table to mitigate the embarrassment of being perceived to overeat; and offering cost-savings linked to room cleaning frequency and towel usage (see Dolnicar, 2020). Such initiatives will promote green behaviour amongst tourists while ensuring satisfaction with and loyalty to green hospitality establishments.

Limitations and future research

Although the study provides some critical insights, there are some limitations to consider. The study is cross-sectional and deductive, suggesting that the findings are from a particular snapshot with a specific population. Gender is explored within the South African context, and the findings relate to South African social norms. Therefore, the findings are generalisable to the South African context concerning the period under study. Replication of the study across various contexts is recommended to generate more insights into green hospitality and its value as an interventionist approach to influencing tourist behaviour. Validation of the model across different countries would also enhance the contribution of the measuring scale and its contribution to theory and literature.

Figures

Conceptual framework

Figure 1

Conceptual framework

Measurement model – outer loadings summary

CodeItemComplete sampleMaleFemale
OLVIFKurtosisSkewnessOLVIFKurtosisSkewnessOLVIFKurtosisSkewness
Consumer Perceived Emotional Value
CPE1It makes me feel safe and relaxed0.8402.0152.745−0.3070.8481.9342.7350.1290.8322.1833.217−0.878
CPE2Makes me feel happy about my booking0.8912.3506.270−0.8940.8662.0316.664−1.5180.9182.9502.4870.602
CPE3Give me a feeling of well-being0.8801.8424.621−0.0590.8721.7735.6920.3660.8861.9782.522−0.703
Consumer Perceived Functional Value
CPF1Provides an impression of a consistent level of quality0.8762.1444.466−0.9210.8802.1735.629−1.5950.8692.1612.310−0.062
CPF2Represents an acceptable standard of quality0.8782.3175.281−0.1470.8842.4913.1480.4530.8752.3557.343−0.635
CPF3Are overall of a high-value0.9012.1682.802−0.0350.9242.7493.366−0.0510.8721.7772.346−0.178
Consumer Perceived Social Value
CPS1Give a good impression of me to other people0.8442.1262.1300.5560.8532.2202.8361.1790.8462.1770.7700.159
CPS2Improves my social status0.9283.3262.1160.5450.9153.1471.9510.4430.9433.8212.3680.667
CPS3Makes me socially acceptable to others0.9082.4912.823−0.9910.8992.2152.366−0.9100.9152.8973.295−1.181
Consumer Perceived Economic Value
CPV1Represents “value” for money0.8091.5613.084−0.5830.8551.8703.849−0.8920.7431.3232.530−0.433
CPV2Represents accurate pricing based on level of grading0.8091.5122.207−0.4690.8161.6601.832−0.4320.8131.3973.132−0.430
CPV3When comparing what I pay to what I might get, provides me with good value0.8581.6374.842−0.2270.8881.9172.4440.3250.8221.4337.728−0.775
Green Behaviour
GRN1The establishment limits food waste0.7521.7302.156−0.0150.7581.7702.353−0.1470.7631.7311.5890.392
GRN2The establishment practices recycling0.8772.8852.4380.1180.8562.5062.6860.0300.9003.6041.1120.366
GRN3The establishment applies green principles0.8883.3201.3720.3520.8943.2830.3000.2440.8903.6781.6330.127
GRN4The establishment decreases their carbon footprint – no printing0.8662.8771.730−0.1530.8793.3641.273−0.3040.8532.6152.268−0.044
GRN5The establishment encourages limited water use0.7571.8221.203−0.5130.7712.1371.160−0.3100.7491.6761.061−0.691
Pro-Environmental Measures
PEM 2Water saving measures0.7121.4810.943−0.4460.7661.5890.766−0.5020.6501.4060.948−0.407
PEM 3Waste management activities0.7861.7211.658−0.0800.8011.9141.1460.1550.7671.5531.987−0.269
PEM 4Biological diversity management activities0.7761.6391.427−0.1340.7841.7271.008−0.3280.7611.5642.0450.133
PEM 6Participate in policy discussions related to sustainable tourism0.7661.9931.540−0.3000.8162.3961.3820.0630.7001.7061.693−0.531
PEM 7Involvement/commitment to CSR and community welfare0.7021.7401.094−0.0290.7211.9171.5090.0600.6751.5760.624−0.100

Note(s): CPE = Consumer Perceived Emotional Value; CPF = Consumer Perceived Functional Value; CPS = Consumer Perceived Social Value; CPV = Consumer Perceived Value for Money; GRN = Green Behaviour; PEM = Pro-Environmental Measures; OL = Outer Loading; VIF = Variance inflation factor

Source(s): Table by authors

Measurement model – reliability and validity summary

ItemCompleteMaleFemale
Alpha (α)CRAVEAlpha (α)CRAVEAlpha (α)CRAVE
CPE0.8420.9040.7580.8290.8970.7440.8560.9110.773
CPF0.8620.9150.7830.8780.9250.8030.8440.9050.760
CPS0.8750.9220.7990.8690.9190.7910.8860.9290.814
CPV0.7670.8650.6820.8140.8890.7280.7060.8360.629
GRN0.8860.9170.6890.8890.9190.6940.8880.9190.694
SUST0.8050.8650.5610.8370.8850.6050.7570.8370.507

Note(s): CPE = Consumer Perceived Emotional Value; CPF = Consumer Perceived Functional Value; CPS = Consumer Perceived Social Value; CPV = Consumer Perceived Value for Money; GRN = Green Behaviour; Alpha = Cronbach Alpha; CR=Composite Reliability; AVE = Average Variance Extracted

Source(s): Table by authors

Structural model explanatory power

VariableCompleteMaleFemale
R2Q2R2Q2R2Q2
CPE0.1190.0950.1290.0840.1020.079
CPF0.0750.0580.0320.0210.1390.099
CPS0.1570.1030.1450.0830.1690.119
CPV0.1230.0810.1060.0670.1400.079
GRN0.2660.2600.2890.2810.2540.239

Note(s): CPE = Consumer Perceived Emotional Value; CPF = Consumer Perceived Functional Value; CPS = Consumer Perceived Social Value; CPV = Consumer Perceived Value for Money; GRN = Green Behaviour; R2 – Coefficient of 0.19 = Weak; 0.23 = Medium; 0.67 = Substantial; Q2 – Predictive power of > 0.000

Source(s): Table by authors

Direct relationships

HypothesesCompleteMaleFemale
f2βtp-valueOutcomef2βtp-valueOutcomef2βtp-valueOutcome
H1aPEM → CPE0.0470.2384.0360.000***Accept0.0330.1992.3320.020**Accept0.0560.2583.0650.002**Accept
H1bPEM → CPF0.0290.1923.2270.001**Accept0.0170.1511.7460.081*Accept0.0510.2432.8200.005**Accept
H1cPEM → CPS0.0360.2023.1830.001**Accept0.0290.1851.9230.055*Accept0.0510.2393.2290.001**Accept
H1dPEM → CPV0.0300.1892.7010.007**Accept0.0270.1821.7510.080*Accept0.0310.1881.9520.051*Accept
H2PEM → GRN0.3670.51811.1590.000***Accept0.4130.5418.9960.000***Accept0.3480.5087.0810.000***Accept
H3aGRN → CPE0.0230.1642.5750.010**Accept0.0410.2242.2750.023**Accept0.0120.1181.3980.162Reject
H3bGRN → CPF0.0140.1312.0360.042**Accept0.0050.0790.7270.467Reject0.0350.1992.4740.013**Accept
H3cGRN → CPS0.0580.2584.4060.000***Accept0.0570.2602.9460.003**Accept0.0550.2483.1190.002**Accept
H3dGRN → CPV0.0410.2203.4770.001**Accept0.0340.2052.0530.040**Accept0.0570.2563.1490.002**Accept

Note(s): CPE = Consumer Perceived Emotional Value; CPF = Consumer Perceived Functional Value; CPS = Consumer Perceived Social Value; CPV = Consumer Perceived Value for Money; GRN = Green Behaviour; PEM = Pro-Environmental Measures

Relationships are significant at: *p < 0.100; **p < 0.05; ***p < 0.001, β = Beta Coefficient; t-value = t – Statistics; p-value = Probability (p) value

Source(s): Table by authors

Indirect relationships

HypothesesCompleteMaleFemale
βtp-value2.5%97.5%Outβtp-value2.5%97.5%Outβtp-value2.5%97.5%Out
CI lower limitCI upper limit CI lower limitCI upper limit CI lower limitCI upper limit
H4aPEM → GRN → CPE0.0852.4600.014**0.0210.156Accept0.1212.1490.032**0.0150.235Accept0.0601.3200.187−0.0230.153Reject
H4bPEM → GRN → CPF0.0681.9450.052*0.0010.140Accept0.0430.6990.485−0.0780.161Reject0.1012.2560.024**0.0220.201Accept
H4cPEM → GRN → CPS0.1344.1110.000***0.0730.201Accept0.1412.8060.005**0.0410.240Accept0.1262.8060.005**0.0460.223Accept
H4dPEM → GRN → CPV0.1143.2350.001**0.0480.186Accept0.1111.9050.057*−0.0010.225Accept0.1302.7840.005**0.0500.235Accept

Note(s): CPE = Consumer Perceived Emotional Value; CPF = Consumer Perceived Functional Value; CPS = Consumer Perceived Social Value; CPV = Consumer Perceived Value for Money; GRN = Green Behaviour; PEM = Pro-Environmental Measures

Relationships are significant at: *p < 0.100; **p < 0.05; ***p < 0.001, β = Beta Coefficient; t-value = t – Statistics; p-value = Probability (p) value; CI = Confidence Index

Source(s): Table by authors

Summary of multi-group analysis test

RelationshipOriginal (Male)p-value (Male)Original (female)p-value (female)Invariant
GRN → CPE0.2240.0200.1180.166No
GRN → CPF0.0790.4670.1990.014No
GRN → CPS0.2600.0030.2480.002Yes
GRN → CPV0.2050.0370.2560.001Yes
PEM → CPE0.1990.0210.2580.002Yes
PEM → CPF0.1510.0820.2430.004No
PEM → CPS0.1850.0580.2390.001No
PEM → CPV0.1820.0810.1880.054Yes
PEM → GRN0.5410.0000.5080.000Yes

Note(s): CPE = Consumer Perceived Emotional Value; CPF = Consumer Perceived Functional Value; CPS = Consumer Perceived Social Value; CPV = Consumer Perceived Value for Money; GRN = Green Behaviour; PEM = Pro-Environmental Measures

*The Differences are significant in the relationships between males and females (p < 0.05)

Source(s): Table by authors

Supplementary data

Table A1

Socio-demographic profile

ProfileCount (n)Frequency (%)
GenderMale21749.32%
Female22050.00%
Non-binary30.68%
Age18–245813.21%
25–3420446.47%
35–4411025.06%
45–544510.25%
55–64184.10%
Above 6440.91%
Economic activityEmployed in the private sector30569.32%
Student265.91%
Unemployed286.36%
Employed in the public sector7416.82%
Retired71.59%
Travel companion(s)Alone8410.40%
With my partner22928.34%
Family (Adults and children)17421.53%
Work colleagues678.29%
With my children8210.15%
With my friends809.90%
Friends and family9211.39%
Province of originNorth-West102.27%
Gauteng23553.41%
Limpopo143.18%
Mpumalanga286.36%
Eastern Cape204.55%
Western Cape6214.09%
KwaZulu Natal5612.73%
Free State122.73%
Northern Cape30.68%

Source(s): Table by authors

Table A2

MICOM Summary – Step 2

Step 2Original correlationCorrelation permutation mean5.0%Permutation p-value
CPE1.0000.9980.9920.793
CPF1.0000.9970.9920.997
CPS0.9990.9990.9950.676
CPV0.9980.9950.9850.679
GRN1.0000.9990.9970.819
PEM0.9980.9970.9910.576

Note(s): CPE = Consumer Perceived Emotional Value; CPF = Consumer Perceived Functional Value; CPS = Consumer Perceived Social Value; CPV = Consumer Perceived Value for Money; GRN = Green Behaviour; PEM = Pro-Environmental Measures

Source(s): Table by authors

Table A3

MICOM Summary – Step 3a (mean)

Step 3aOriginal differencePermutation mean difference2.5%97.5%Permutation p-value
CPE−0.0600.004−0.2050.1970.557
CPF−0.0350.002−0.1830.1900.745
CPS0.2050.000−0.2130.2020.050
CPV−0.0200.003−0.2080.2140.837
GRN−0.0080.000−0.1980.1950.931
PEM0.0070.000−0.1980.2080.958

Note(s): CPE = Consumer Perceived Emotional Value; CPF = Consumer Perceived Functional Value; CPS = Consumer Perceived Social Value; CPV = Consumer Perceived Value for Money; GRN = Green Behaviour; PEM = Pro-Environmental Measures

Source(s): Table by authors

Table A4

MICOM Summary – Step 3b (variance)

Step3bOriginal differencePermutation mean difference2.5%97.5%Permutation p-value
CPE0.1020.001−0.3620.3960.618
CPF0.236−0.012−0.4470.4330.306
CPS0.121−0.000−0.2460.2530.345
CPV0.3590.003−0.3490.3740.054
GRN0.0680.004−0.3080.2970.686
PEM0.371−0.006−0.4180.3740.067

Note(s): CPE = Consumer Perceived Emotional Value; CPF = Consumer Perceived Functional Value; CPS = Consumer Perceived Social Value; CPV = Consumer Perceived Value for Money; GRN = Green Behaviour; PEM = Pro-Environmental Measures

Source(s): Table by authors

Table A5

Discriminate validity – heterotrait-monotrait ratio of correlations (HTMT)

CPECPFCPSCPVGRNPEM
Complete
CPE
CPF0.616
CPS0.5570.556
CPV0.8430.6210.588
GRN0.3260.2570.4040.380
PEM0.3830.3080.3960.3840.606
Male
CPE
CPF0.646
CPS0.6400.589
CPV0.8550.5510.629
GRN0.3790.1760.3980.346
PEM0.3750.2220.3740.3510.614
Female
CPE
CPF0.571
CPS0.4870.534
CPV0.8310.7160.558
GRN0.2770.3640.4070.438
PEM0.3860.4210.4380.4280.612

Note(s): CPE = Consumer Perceived Emotional Value; CPF = Consumer Perceived Functional Value; CPS = Consumer Perceived Social Value; CPV = Consumer Perceived Value for Money; GRN = Green Behaviour; PEM = Pro-Environmental Measures

Source(s): Table by authors

Table A6

Discriminate validity – Fornell and Larcker criteria

CPECPFCPSCPVGRNPEM
Complete
CPE0.871
CPF0.5280.885
CPS0.4750.4770.894
CPV0.6690.5090.4680.826
GRN0.2880.2310.3630.3190.830
PEM0.3230.2600.3360.3040.5180.749
Male
CPE0.862
CPF0.5540.896
CPS0.5320.5070.889
CPV0.6980.4730.5100.853
GRN0.3310.1610.3600.3030.833
PEM0.3200.1940.3260.2930.5410.778
Female
CPE0.879
CPF0.4870.872
CPS0.4290.4590.902
CPV0.6310.5550.4380.793
GRN0.2490.3230.3690.3510.833
PEM0.3180.3440.3640.3180.5080.712

Note(s): CPE = Consumer Perceived Emotional Value; CPF = Consumer Perceived Functional Value; CPS = Consumer Perceived Social Value; CPV = Consumer Perceived Value for Money; GRN = Green Behaviour; PEM = Pro-Environmental Measures

Source(s): Table by authors

Table A7

Total effect

CompleteMaleFemale
βSTDEVtp- values2.5%97.5%βSTDEVtp- values2.5%97.5%βSTDEVtp- values2.5%97.5%
GRN → CPE0.1640.0642.5750.010**0.0390.2900.2240.0982.2750.023**0.0230.4090.1180.0841.3980.162−0.0500.278
GRN → CPF0.1310.0642.0360.042**0.0020.2570.0790.1090.7270.467−0.1470.2800.1990.0812.4740.013**0.0340.351
GRN → CPS0.2580.0594.4060.000***0.1400.3700.2600.0882.9460.003**0.0690.4210.2480.0793.1190.002**0.0810.396
GRN → CPV0.2200.0633.4770.001**0.0930.3410.2050.1002.0530.040**−0.0060.3850.2560.0813.1490.002**0.0880.409
PEM → CPE0.3230.0516.3940.000***0.2160.4160.3200.0744.3450.000***0.1610.4530.3180.0694.6300.000***0.1650.437
PEM → CPF0.2600.0534.9440.000***0.1520.3570.1940.0762.5520.011**0.0300.3280.3440.0685.0700.000***0.1900.461
PEM → CPS0.3360.0526.4780.000***0.2270.4300.3260.0774.2220.000***0.1600.4650.3640.0576.4150.000***0.2380.464
PEM → CPV0.3040.0595.1860.000***0.1830.4140.2930.0863.4140.001**0.1060.4480.3180.0734.3490.000***0.1660.453
PEM → GRN0.5180.04611.1590.000***0.4180.6010.5410.0608.9960.000***0.4090.6450.5080.0727.0810.000***0.3460.629

Note(s): CPE = Consumer Perceived Emotional Value; CPF = Consumer Perceived Functional Value; CPS = Consumer Perceived Social Value; CPV = Consumer Perceived Value for Money; GRN = Green Behaviour; PEM = Pro-Environmental Measures

Relationships are significant at: *p < 0.100; **p < 0.05; ***p < 0.001, β = Beta Coefficient; t-value = t – Statistics; p-value = Probability (p) value

Source(s): Table by authors

References

Bagheri, M., Shojaei, P., Jahromi, S.A. and Kiani, M. (2020), “Proposing a model for assessing green hotels based on ecological indicators”, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 406-422, doi: 10.1177/1467358420904123.

Bandura, A. (1986), Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Bandura, A. (1991), “Social Cognitive Theory of moral thought and action”, in Kurtines, W.M. and Gewirtz, J.L. (Eds), Handbook of Moral Behavior and Development, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 45-103.

Behera, A., Jatav, S.S., Yadav, A.K. and Behera, K.B. (2023), “How do domestic and foreign tourists understand the concept of ‘green hotels’ and its practices in India?”, Journal of Survey in Fisheries Sciences, Vol. 10 No. 4S, pp. 2551-2559, doi: 10.17762/sfs.v10i4S.1614.

Berezan, O., Raab, C., Yoo, M. and Love, C. (2013), “Sustainable hotel practices and nationality: the impact on guest satisfaction and guest intention to return”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 34, pp. 227-233, doi: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2013.03.010.

Cabral, C. and Jabbour, C.J.C. (2020), “Understanding the human side of green hospitality management”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 88, 102389, doi: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2019.102389.

Camisón, C. and Forés, B. (2015), “Is tourism firm competitiveness driven by different internal or external specific factors?: new empirical evidence from Spain”, Tourism Management, Vol. 48, pp. 477-499, doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2015.01.001.

Cao, J., Qiu, H., Morrison, A.M. and Guo, Y. (2024), “The effect of pro-environmental destination image on resident environmental citizenship behavior: the mediating roles of satisfaction and pride”, Land, Vol. 13 No. 7, 1075, doi: 10.3390/land13071075.

Cohen, J. (1988), Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioural Sciences, 2nd ed., Routledge, New York.

Cooper, E., Dolnicar, S. and Grün, B. (2024), “Understanding how a commitment-based pledge intervention encourages pro-environmental tourist behaviour”, Tourism Management, Vol. 104, 104928, doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2024.104928.

Dash, G. and Paul, J. (2021), “CB-SEM vs PLS-SEM methods for research in social sciences and technology forecasting”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 173, 121092, doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121092.

Dedeoğlu, B.B., Karakuş, Y., Çalışkan, C. and Aydın, Ş. (2023), “A complexity perspective for antecedents of support for tourism development”, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Insights, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 191-221, doi: 10.1108/JHTI-02-2021-0048.

Do, V.T.H. and Do, L.T. (2024), “Downward social comparison in explaining pro-environmental attitude-sustainable consumption behavior gap”, Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print, doi: 10.1108/APJML-05-2024-0665.

Dolnicar, S. (2020), “Designing for more environmentally friendly tourism”, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 84, 102933, doi: 10.1016/j.annals.2020.102933.

Durán-Román, J.L., Cárdenas-García, P.J. and Pulido-Fernández, J.I. (2021), “Tourists' willingness to pay to improve sustainability and experience at destination”, Journal of Destination Marketing and Management, Vol. 19, 100540, doi: 10.1016/j.jdmm.2020.100540.

El-Adly, M.I. (2019), “Modelling the relationship between hotel perceived value, customer satisfaction, and customer loyalty”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 50, pp. 322-332, doi: 10.1016/j.jretconser.2018.07.007.

Filimonau, V., Matute, J., Mika, M., Kubal-Czerwińska, M., Krzesiwo, K. and Pawłowska-Legwand, A. (2022), “Predictors of patronage intentions towards ‘green’ hotels in an emerging tourism market”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 103, 103221, doi: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2022.103221.

Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-50, doi: 10.2307/3151312.

Gallarza, M.G. and Gil Saura, I. (2020), “Consumer value in tourism: a perspective article”, Tourism Review, Vol. 75 No. 1, pp. 41-44, doi: 10.1108/TR-06-2019-0227.

Gao, Z., Cheah, J.H., Lim, X.J., Liu, Y. and Morrison, A.M. (2024), “Reinvestigating repurchase intentions for travel apps: a comparison of China's various tiers of cities”, Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, Vol. 29 No. 9, pp. 1033-1062, doi: 10.1080/10941665.2024.2358340.

Gössling, S. and Peeters, P. (2015), “Assessing tourism's global environmental impact 1900-2050”, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, Vol. 23 No. 5, pp. 639-659, doi: 10.1080/09669582.2015.1008500.

Griffin, M.M. and Steinbrecher, T.D. (2013), “Large-Scale datasets in special education research”, International Review of Research in Developmental Disabilities, Vol. 45, pp. 155-183, doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-407760-7.00004-9.

Hair, J.F., Ringle, C.M. and Sarstedt, M. (2013), “Partial least squares structural equation modeling: rigorous applications, better results and higher acceptance”, Long Range Planning, Vol. 46 Nos 1-2, pp. 1-12, doi: 10.1016/j.lrp.2013.01.001, available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2233795

Han, H., Hsu, L.-T., Lee, J.-S. and Sheu, C. (2011), “Are lodging customers ready to go green? An examination of attitudes, demographics, and eco-friendly intentions”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 345-355, doi: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2010.07.008.

Henseler, J., Ringle, C.M. and Sarstedt, M. (2015), “A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modelling”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 115-135, doi: 10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8.

Hsiao, T.Y., Chuang, C.M., Kuo, N.W. and Yu, S.M.F. (2014), “Establishing attributes of an environmental management system for green hotel evaluation”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 36, pp. 197-208, doi: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2013.09.005.

Hu, B., Fu, Y. and Wang, Y. (2011), “An empirical study on the dimensions of consumer perceived value in green hotels”, International Conference on Management and Service Science, IEEE, pp. 1-4, doi: 10.1109/ICMSS.2011.5998754.

Ifegbesan, A.P., Rampedi, I.T., Ogunyemi, B. and Modley, L. (2022), “Predicting pro-environmental behaviour amongst citizens in African countries: a cross-national study amongst six African countries”, Sustainability, Vol. 14 No. 15, 9311, doi: 10.3390/su14159311.

Kim, Y.H., Barber, N. and Kim, D.K. (2018), “Sustainability research in the hotel industry: past, present, and future”, Journal of Hospitality Marketing and Management, Vol. 28 No. 5, pp. 576-620, doi: 10.1080/19368623.2019.1533907.

Kim, A., Kim, K.P. and Nguyen, T.H.D. (2021), “The green accommodation management practices: the role of environmentally responsible tourist markets in understanding tourists' pro-environmental behaviour”, Sustainability, Vol. 13 No. 4, 2326, doi: 10.3390/su13042326.

Koller, M., Floh, A. and Zauner, A. (2011), “Further insights into perceived value and consumer loyalty: a “Green” perspective”, Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 28 No. 12, pp. 1154-1176, doi: 10.1002/mar.20432.

Latif, K.F., Tariq, R., Muneeb, D., Sahibzada, U.F. and Ahmad, S. (2022), “University Social Responsibility and performance: the role of service quality, reputation, student satisfaction and trust”, Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print, pp. 1-25, doi: 10.1080/08841241.2022.2139791.

Leong, A.M.W., Yeh, S.S., Chen, H.B., Lee, C.L. and Huan, T.C. (2024), “Does gender make a difference in heritage tourism experience? Searching for answers through multi-group analysis”, Tourism Management Perspectives, Vol. 52, 101250, doi: 10.1016/j.tmp.2024.101250.

Ma, Y., Tang, H. and Ren, J. (2024), “Tourists’ risk perceptions and pro-environmental behaviour during the pandemic: the roles of environmental concern and environmental ethics reflection”, Current Issues in Tourism, Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print, pp. 1-18, doi: 10.1080/13683500.2024.2351145.

Majeed, S., Kim, W.G. and Kim, T. (2023), “Perceived green psychological benefits and customer pro-environment behaviour in the value-belief-norm theory: the moderating role of perceived green CSR”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 113, 103502, doi: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2023.103502.

Matiza, T. and Kruger, M. (2022), “Profiling the South African recreational domestic tourist in the era of COVID-19”, Leisure Sciences, Vol. 46 No. 7, pp. 955-976, doi: 10.1080/01490400.2022.2046525.

Mengzhen, L., Sin, Y., Jaafar, W.-M.-W., Khir, A.M., Hamsan, H.H., Yong, M.H., Wu, S.L., Ooi, P.B., Ong, D.L.T. and Ong, S.C. (2022), “Curbing bribe-giving in Malaysia: the role of attitudes and parents”, Public Integrity, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 188-202, doi: 10.1080/10999922.2022.2144017.

Merli, R., Preziosi, M., Acampora, A. and Ali, F. (2019), “Why should hotels go green? Insights from guests experience in green hotels”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 81, pp. 169-179, doi: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2019.04.022.

Nisar, Q.A., Haider, S., Ali, F., Gill, S.S. and Waqas, A. (2022), “The role of green HRM on environmental performance of hotels: mediating effect of green self-efficacy and employee green behaviors”, Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality and Tourism, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 85-118, doi: 10.1080/1528008X.2022.2109235.

Nunkoo, R., Teeroovengadum, V., Ringle, C.M. and Sunnassee, V. (2020), “Service quality and customer satisfaction: the moderating effects of hotel star rating”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 91, 102414, doi: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2019.102414.

Nurul Alam, M., Mashi, M.S., Azizan, N.A., Alotaibi, M. and Hashim, F. (2023), “When and how green human resource management practices turn to employees’ pro-environmental behavior of hotel employees in Nigeria: the role of employee green commitment and green self-efficacy”, Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality and Tourism, Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print, pp. 1-28, doi: 10.1080/1528008X.2023.2249233.

Nyikana, S. and Bama, H.K. (2023), “Domestic tourism as a recovery strategy in the face of COVID-19: insights from South Africa”, Acta Commercii-Independent Research Journal in the Management Sciences, Vol. 23 No. 1, 1066, doi: 10.4102/ac.v23i1.1066, available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10520/ejc-acom_v23_n1_a1066

Prebensen, N.K. and Rosengren, S. (2016), “Experience value as a function of hedonic-and utilitarian-dominant services”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 113-135, doi: 10.1108/IJCHM-02-2014-0073.

Ringle, C.M., Wende, S. and Becker, J.-M. (2024), “SmartPLS 4. Bönningstedt: SmartPLS”, available at: https://www.smartpls.com

Robinot, E. and Giannelloni, J.-L. (2010), “Do hotels' ‘green’ attributes contribute to customer satisfaction?”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 157-169, doi: 10.1108/08876041011031127.

Roxas, H.B. and Marte, R. (2022), “Effects of institutions on the eco-brand orientation of millennial consumers: a social cognitive perspective”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 93-105, doi: 10.1108/JCM-11-2020-4262.

Saeed, B., Tasmin, R., Mahmood, A. and Hafeez, A. (2022), “Development of a multi-item Operational Excellence scale: exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis”, The TQM Journal, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 576-602, doi: 10.1108/TQM-10-2020-0227.

Sampene, A.K., Li, C., Wiredu, J., Agyeman, F.O. and Brenya, R. (2024), “Examining the nexus between social cognition, biospheric values, moral norms, corporate environmental responsibility and pro-environmental behaviour. Does environmental knowledge matter?”, Current Psychology, Vol. 43 No. 7, pp. 6549-6569, doi: 10.1007/s12144-023-04832-6.

Saut, M. and Bie, S. (2022), “Impact of service expectation, experiential quality, and perceived value on hotel customer satisfaction”, Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality and Tourism, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 781-809, doi: 10.1080/1528008X.2022.2141414.

Sawitri, D.R., Hadiyanto, H. and Hadi, S.P. (2015), “Pro-environmental behavior from a social cognitive theory perspective”, Procedia Environmental Sciences, Vol. 23, pp. 27-33, doi: 10.1016/j.proenv.2015.01.005.

Trinh, T.T. and Thuy, H.T.K. (2024), “Policies to practice in greening accommodation at world heritage”, Journal on Tourism and Sustainability, Vol. 7 Nos 1 and 2, pp. 124-131, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.12599293.

van Valkengoed, A.M., Abrahamse, W. and Steg, L. (2022), “To select effective interventions for pro-environmental behaviour change, we need to consider determinants of behaviour”, Nature Human Behaviour, Vol. 6 No. 11, pp. 1482-1492, doi: 10.1038/s41562-022-01473-w.

Verma, V.K. and Chandra, B. (2016), “Hotel guest's perception and choice dynamics for green hotel attribute: a mix method approach”, Indian Journal of Science and Technology, Vol. 9 No. 5, doi: 10.17485/ijst/2016/v9i5/77601.

Verma, V.K. and Chandra, B. (2018), “An application of theory of planned behavior to predict young Indian consumers' green hotel visit intention”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 172, pp. 1152-1162, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.047.

Vicente-Molina, M.A., Fernández-Sainz, A. and Izagirre-Olaizola, J. (2018), “Does gender make a difference in pro-environmental behaviour? The case of the Basque Country University students”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 176, pp. 89-98, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.079.

Wang, Y. and Jiao, Y. (2024), “Can environmental science popularization of tourism live streaming stimulate potential tourists' pro-environmental behavior intentions? A construal level theory analysis”, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, Vol. 60, pp. 42-50, doi: 10.1016/j.jhtm.2024.06.003.

Worsfold, K., Fisher, R., McPhail, R., Francis, M. and Thomas, A. (2016), “Satisfaction, value and intention to return in hotels”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 28 No. 11, pp. 2570-2588, doi: 10.1108/IJCHM-04-2015-0195.

Wu, J., Font, X. and Liu, J. (2021), “Tourists' pro-environmental behaviours: moral obligation or disengagement?”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 60 No. 4, pp. 735-748, doi: 10.1177/0047287520910787.

Xiao, C. and McCright, A.M. (2015), “Gender differences in environmental concern: revisiting the institutional trust hypothesis in the USA”, Environmental Behaviour, Vol. 47 No. 1, pp. 17-37, doi: 10.1177/0013916513491571.

Zeithaml, V.A. (1988), “Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: a means-end model and synthesis of evidence”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 52 No. 3, pp. 2-22, doi: 10.1177/002224298805200302.

Zhang, N., Liu, R., Zhang, X.Y. and Pang, Z.L. (2021), “The impact of consumer perceived value on repeat purchase intention based on online reviews: by the method of text mining”, Data Science and Management, Vol. 3, pp. 22-32, doi: 10.1016/j.dsm.2021.09.001.

Acknowledgements

This study was funded by the National Department of Tourism: Republic of South Africa 2023/24.

Disclosure statement: Authors have no competing interest to declare. This work is based on research supported by the National Research Foundation (NRF). Any opinion, finding, conclusion or recommendation expressed in this material is that of the authors, and the NRF does not accept any liability in this regard.

Corresponding author

Tafadzwa Matiza can be contacted at: tafadzwa.matiza@nwu.ac.za

Related articles