1. Introduction
To address issues such as the decline in agricultural biodiversity, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization launched the Globally Important Agricultural Heritage Systems (GIAHS) protection initiative in 2002 [1]. As non-renewable human heritage, the world’s agricultural heritage sites are rich in natural ecological resources such as plants and animals, carrying human spiritual and cultural values. They are also important tourist destinations for expanding the value of eco-recreation services related to agricultural heritage [2]. However, due to the characteristics of agricultural heritage sites such as their endangered status, ecological vulnerability, and cultural sensitivity, uncivilized behavior by tourists may lead to landscape fragmentation and ecosystem damage, impacting the ecological environment and resources of these tourist areas [3,4]. The development of tourism in heritage sites must be premised on the protection of agricultural heritage. Poor management can have severe negative impacts on agricultural heritage [5]. Therefore, guiding tourists to proactively engage in environmentally friendly behaviors while enjoying their tourism experience to maintain or enhance the environmental value of heritage sites has become an effective way to address the ecological challenges of heritage sites and achieve sustainable development [6].
As a proactive environmental behavior, pro-environmental behavior among tourists is a complex decision-making process. Previous research has primarily focused on the direct impact of cognitive factors such as environmental risk perception [7], environmental knowledge [8], and environmental values [9] on tourists’ pro-environmental behavior, while relatively little attention has been given to the effect of emotional factors. According to the “cognitive–affective–conative” theory, cognition and affect are two determining factors for behavior [10]. Cognition refers to an individual’s viewpoints and beliefs about specific things, related to their perception and evaluation of those things. Affect is the psychological experience generated by an individual based on their cognition. Behavior is the decision made by an individual based on their cognition and affect, influenced by their value cognition and emotional education behavior practices. This theoretical logic indicates that environmental concern represents tourists’ value cognition of environmental issues and their subjective willingness to support solutions, with a precursor effect as an important cognitive variable in tourists’ decision-making process for pro-environmental behavior [11]. Simultaneously, tourists’ environmental concern influences their cognitive processing of environmental issues, which further affects their mediating emotional response to the environment and their willingness to decide on pro-environmental behavior [12]. However, the relationship and effect between tourists’ environmental concern, environmental emotion, and pro-environmental behavior in the context of ecological recreation at heritage sites remain unclear.
Cognitive psychology posits that prior environmental events are merely stored in an individual’s information bank of behavioral motives, and behavior generation is also related to immediate situational stimuli. Thus, it emphasizes the subjective creativity and uncertainty of individuals in the generation of behavior [13]. Emotion, as an internal factor influencing tourist behavior, is often used to explain the process of influencing tourists’ pro-environmental behavior. In recent years, a large number of scholars have applied psychology to the field of tourism [14,15]. Among them, situational ecological anxiety arising from fear and worry due to concern about ecological and environmental issues has become a research hotspot [16]. However, the natural empathy, which is the antecedent of ecological anxiety, has not received much attention. The natural empathy is a specific reflection of ecological anxiety. Individuals with high natural empathy tend to feel a strong connection with the Earth, other people, or other species. When ecological and environmental issues arise, they experience more anxiety or distress [17], and this empathy can prompt individuals to behave in ways that benefit environmental sustainability [18]. Therefore, whether natural empathy and ecological anxiety play a chain role in the relationship between tourists’ environmental concern and pro-environmental behavior has become a key issue in this research.
In summary, based on the “cognitive–affective–conative” theory and from the perspective of natural beings, this research intends to examine the influence of natural empathy and ecological anxiety on the relationship between environmental concern and pro-environmental behavior, aiming to provide a breakthrough for resolving the inconsistency between “cognition and behavior”. Additionally, it will further discuss whether there are gender differences in the impact of emotions on behavior among tourists. Therefore, this research will proceed from the following aspects. Firstly, it will investigate the impact of tourists’ environmental concern on their pro-environmental behavior. Secondly, it will explore the mechanism through which natural empathy and ecological anxiety influence environmental concern and the occurrence of pro-environmental behavior. Lastly, it will explore the gender differences in the relationship between emotions and behavior. Further clarifying the mechanism of tourists’ pro-environmental behavior is conducive to understanding the causes of the inconsistency between “cognition and behavior” in tourism contexts, advancing the development of existing theories, and guiding management practices in tourist destinations.
2. Theoretical Foundation and Hypotheses Development
2.1. “Cognitive–Affective–Conative” Theoretical Analysis Framework
This paper endeavors to explore the mediating effects of natural empathy and ecological anxiety in the process where tourists’ environmental concern influences their pro-environmental behavior, using the theoretical framework of “cognitive–affective–conative”. As a foundational construct in the “cognitive–affective–conative” theory, individual cognition pertains to activities involving the attention, memory, and processing of knowledge and information [19]. When visiting agricultural cultural heritage sites, individuals’ prior knowledge, the destination image of the heritage site, and interactions with local personnel all emit cognitive signals. These not only enhance tourists’ cognition of the heritage site, but also subtly guide their emotions, evoking ecological sentiments [20]. More importantly, the “cognitive–affective–conative” theory establishes a logical chain of “individual cognition–emotional response–individual conation”, suggesting that emotional responses triggered by individual cognition further induce changes in individual conation. This study posits that natural empathy and ecological anxiety, stimulated by environmental concern, may constitute a significant driving force behind tourists’ pro-environmental behavior.
In the study of individual behavior, the cognitive–affective–conative (CAC) theory is often applied in empirical research. This theory points out that cognition, affect, and conation are closely related and are known as the “three stages of the mind” [21]. Individuals generate specific emotional responses through the attention, memory, and processing of knowledge and information, and on this basis, they make conscious and planned comprehensive decisions [22]. The constituent elements of this theoretical dimension provide a certain theoretical framework and ideas for this paper [23,24,25]. By summarizing existing literature, in the context of agricultural cultural heritage sites (such as the Anxi Tieguanyin Tea Culture System, the Jiangsu Wujiang Di-tang Agricultural System, the Fujian Wuyi Rock Tea Culture System, etc.), the cognitive stage can be understood as follows: Tourists learn about the current environmental issues faced by agricultural cultural heritage sites from news media, then perceive objective attributes such as the atmosphere created by the heritage sites and are influenced by the cultural influence of the heritage sites, thereby forming perceptions. Based on their own relevant knowledge and experience, they judge whether it is necessary to protect the environment, cultural heritage, and the importance of environmental concern, ultimately forming emotions and feelings about the ecotourism destination. There are many types of emotions that tourists experience in ecotourism, but this paper focuses on tourists’ natural empathy ability and ecological anxiety. As Chen believes, natural empathy ability plays an important intermediary role in promoting people’s pro-environmental behavior [26]. Hickman’s research found that, in the formation mechanism of tourists’ pro-environmental behavior, ecological anxiety also plays an intermediary role [27]. Therefore, based on the CAC theory, tourists’ concern and perception of ecotourism destinations will naturally trigger their empathy ability. The higher their level of concern for the environment, the stronger their empathy ability will be. When tourists immerse themselves in agricultural cultural heritage sites from a biological perspective, they will realize that the environment may suffer damage, which will lead to ecological anxiety. This anxious emotion will further influence their behavioral attitude towards ecotourism, prompting them to more actively participate in environmental protection actions, maintain ecological balance, and promote sustainable development. At the same time, environmental concern can indirectly and effectively increase or decrease tourists’ pro-environmental behavior through the intermediary roles of natural empathy and ecological anxiety, and then promote or hinder tourists’ support for environmental protection. In summary, this study believes that through the attention formed by media such as new media, tourists develop their cognition of the ecological environment of agricultural cultural heritage sites (cognitive stage) and experience agricultural cultural heritage site tourism, thereby forming psychological feelings (affective stage). Through emotional judgment and evaluation, subjective psychological feelings further induce the emergence of tourists’ pro-environmental behavior (conative stage).
2.2. Model Hypotheses
2.2.1. Environmental Concern and Tourists’ Pro-Environmental Behavior
Environmental concern represents an individual’s subjective willingness to recognize and address environmental issues [28]. In the study of pro-environmental behavior, which can also be termed as environmentally friendly behavior, it refers to the positive and directly environmentally related actions exhibited by individuals in their daily lives that have a beneficial impact on the environment. Simply put, it involves consciously reducing the negative environmental impact of personal behavior and contributing to the creation of a better world [29,30]. The “Norm-Activation” model is the most widely used theory in understanding the relationship between environmental concern and pro-environmental behavior. This theory suggests that values (self-interest concern, altruistic concern, and eco-centric concern) guide pro-environmental behavior, and in this process, awareness of the consequences of environmental damage and attribution of responsibility play a moderating role [31]. Lee demonstrated that eco-centric environmental concern has a significant positive impact on tourists’ pro-environmental behavior in heritage sites [32]. This indicates that tourists’ environmental concern serves as a logical precursor to their pro-environmental behavior, with tourists who possess high levels of environmental concern being more inclined to engage in such behavior. Furthermore, the extent of tourists’ concern about environmental issues is also influenced by their fundamental value orientations. Schultz has pointed out that individuals are more likely to exhibit pro-environmental behavior when they have a stronger awareness of the consequences and attribute those consequences to themselves [33]. Therefore, as tourists’ environmental concern increases, their awareness of the consequences of environmental damage and attribution of responsibility also intensify, thereby influencing their pro-environmental behavior. Based on the above discussion, the first hypothesis of this paper is proposed:
Environmental concern positively influences tourists’ pro-environmental behavior.
2.2.2. The Mediating Role of Natural Empathy
Natural empathy, broadly defined, refers to the understanding and sharing of emotional experiences related to nature [34]. Chen suggested that empathy with nature can not only directly influence pro-environmental behavior, but also systematically impact such behavior through the mechanism of natural connection [35]. According to the theory of emotional sharing, this phenomenon occurs when individuals synchronously mimic the external information they perceive from others. During this process, corresponding motor or emotional regions in the brain are activated, leading to isomorphic representation sharing among individuals [36]. In summary, this study posits that when individuals perceive and are aware of issues related to others and the environment, those with stronger environmental concern will automatically and empathetically form such representation sharing, indicating a stronger empathy with nature. A heightened natural empathy enables individuals to understand the feelings of creatures in eco-tourism destinations, consider their safety and well-being, and be more prone to engaging in positive environmental behaviors. Therefore, the following hypotheses are proposed in this study:
Environmental concern positively influences natural empathy.
Natural empathy mediates the relationship between environmental concern and tourists’ pro-environmental behavior.
2.2.3. The Mediating Role of Ecological Anxiety
Pihkala views ecological anxiety as an anxiety emotion triggered by environmental changes and uncertainties, typically referring to negative environmental shifts such as perilous climate change or ecosystem disruption [37]. In summary, ecological anxiety represents fear and worry arising from individuals’ concern for ecological and environmental issues, constituting a form of situational anxiety [38]. A higher degree of environmental concern often leads to increased contemplation about past and future environmental issues in eco-tourism destinations, as well as potential environmental problems, thereby generating ecological anxiety [39]. Most researchers believe that ecological anxiety plays a positively constructive role in improving the ecological environment. In 2020, Carl A. Latkin indicated that, among individuals who acknowledged the occurrence of climate change and expressed concern, a majority of respondents expressed willingness to engage in pro-environmental behaviors to mitigate issues like environmental change [40]. This suggests that ecological anxiety is not only an individual perception of environmental change, but also a foundation that prompts people to protect the environment. It encourages individuals to increase pro-environmental behaviors, alleviating their own anxiety through action and ultimately aiming to improve the ecological environment. Based on this, the following hypotheses are proposed in this paper:
Environmental concern positively influences ecological anxiety.
Ecological anxiety mediates the relationship between environmental concern and tourists’ pro-environmental behavior.
Based on the comprehensive analysis and grounded in the “cognitive–affective–conative” theory, it is found that natural empathy plays a crucial mediating role between environmental concern and tourists’ pro-environmental behavior. Specifically, tourists with stronger empathy are more capable of deeply feeling the impacts of environmental changes. This concern further motivates them to take practical actions to protect the environment [41]. Similarly, ecological anxiety also serves as a mediator between environmental concern and tourists’ pro-environmental behavior. When tourists experience anxiety about environmental issues, this emotion awakens their awareness of environmental protection, thereby inspiring them to engage in pro-environmental behaviors [42]. Furthermore, the reason why ecological anxiety can increase pro-environmental behaviors may be that ecological anxiety essentially reflects a person’s natural empathy. Individuals with high natural empathy perceive themselves as closely connected to the Earth, other people, or other species. When ecological and environmental issues emerge, they experience more anxiety or distress, which is a progressive emotion. Strong empathy leads to more ecological anxiety, prompting individuals to engage in behaviors beneficial to environmental sustainability [27]. Based on this, the following further hypothesis is proposed in this paper:
Environmental concern positively and sequentially influences tourists’ pro-environmental behavior through natural empathy and ecological anxiety.
2.2.4. Gender Differences in “Affective–Conative”
Gender differences have distinct impacts on tourists’ attitudes, emotions, and behaviors [43]. In the context of tourism, female tourists often exhibit more nuanced and diverse emotional expressions during their travels. They may experience intense emotional reactions, such as excitement, thrill, and being moved, triggered by beautiful scenery, delicious food, cultural experiences, and other stimuli. Male tourists, on the other hand, tend to be more reserved and direct in their emotional expressions. They may prioritize problem-solving over expressing emotions excessively. When encountering dissatisfaction during travel, men may be more inclined to cope through self-adjustment or seeking solutions, rather than expressing or seeking emotional support from others. To further verify the correctness and rigor of these conclusions, this study conducts a heterogeneity analysis based on gender to explore whether there are significant differences in the impact of emotions generated by different genders on tourists’ pro-environmental behaviors.
There are gender differences in the influence of natural empathy and ecological anxiety on pro-environmental behaviors.
Thus, it can be seen that, in the influence mechanism of environmental concern and tourists’ willingness to engage in pro-environmental behaviors, nature empathy and ecological anxiety play mediating roles successively. Based on Montoya and Hayes’ perspective on multiple mediation effects [44], this study constructs a chain mediation effect model (Figure 1).
3. Research Design
3.1. Selection of Research Areas
This study selects the Anxi Tieguanyin Tea Culture System in China as the research area. In 2014, the Anxi Tieguanyin Tea Culture System was included in China’s Important Agricultural Cultural Heritage. Since then, Anxi County has strengthened the protection, development, inheritance, and dissemination of the Anxi Tieguanyin Tea Culture System, achieving positive results. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, the Fujian Anxi Tieguanyin Tea Culture System was officially recognized as a Globally Important Agricultural Heritage System in 2022 for its unique way of utilizing traditional methods and knowledge to maintain unique biodiversity and ecosystems. As a unique and rich agricultural cultural heritage system, the Anxi Tieguanyin Tea Culture System attracts numerous tourists with its profound cultural heritage and ecological value. Its prominent heritage value and vulnerable situation make it an important place for individuals to experience nature. Therefore, pro-environmental behaviors of tourists are crucial for the sustainable development and maintenance of biodiversity in the Anxi Tieguanyin Tea Culture System. Based on the broad representativeness of the agricultural heritage of the Anxi Tieguanyin Tea Culture System, this study selects it as the research area to explore the mechanism through which environmental concern influences tourists’ pro-environmental behaviors.
3.2. Questionnaire Design
This study employs a structural equation model to construct a model that examines the relationships between environmental concern, nature empathy, ecological anxiety, and tourists’ pro-environmental behaviors. Data are collected through a questionnaire survey method. The survey questionnaire for this study is divided into two main parts. The first part collects demographic information, including the gender, age, income, etc., of the respondents. The second part combines the context of agricultural cultural heritage sites with existing mature scales, uniformly adopting a Likert 7-point scale for the questionnaire design of seventeen measurement indicators. Specifically, the environmental concern scale is adapted from the research findings of Hong et al. [43], resulting in four measurement items. The natural empathy scale is based on the research of Tam [44], resulting in four measurement items. The ecological anxiety scale is adapted from the research findings of Heinzel et al. [45], resulting in four measurement items. The tourists’ pro-environmental behavior scale is based on the research of Tu et al. [46], resulting in five measurement items.
3.3. Data Collection
From 20–30 March 2024, this study conducted preliminary research in the Anxi Tieguanyin Tea Culture System in Anxi County. A total of 180 questionnaires were distributed, and 166 valid questionnaires were collected. After conducting reliability and validity tests on the pre-survey questionnaire data, no modifications were made to the questionnaire. From 1–30 May 2024, the research team once again conducted formal research in the Anxi Tieguanyin Tea Culture System in Anxi County. A total of 500 questionnaires were distributed, and after excluding incompletely filled questionnaires, 452 valid questionnaires were obtained, with an effective rate of 90.40%. The demographic characteristics of the valid samples are shown in Table 1.
4. Results
4.1. Reliability and Validity Analysis
The data were analyzed for reliability and validity using SPSS 26.0 and AMOS 23.0 software. The results (Table 2) showed that the Cronbach’s alpha coefficients of all latent variables were above 0.7, indicating high internal consistency of the scale. The overall scale had a KMO value of 0.927, which is higher than 0.8. The significance value of the Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity was 0, indicating that the research data were suitable for factor analysis. The standardized factor loadings of the observed variables were all greater than 0.7, indicating a close relationship between these variables and their corresponding latent variables. This suggests that the observed variables can accurately reflect the characteristics or attributes of the latent variables, demonstrating high convergent validity. Additionally, the composite reliability (CR) values of the latent variables in the scale were all greater than 0.8, indicating that the data had high reliability [47].
4.2. Model Validation
When analyzing the goodness-of-fit of the measurement model, the results (Table 3) showed that indicators such as X2/df, GFI, AGFI, NFI, IFI, CFI, and RMSEA all met the recommended values for goodness-of-fit. At the same time, the average variance extracted (AVE) of the research data was greater than 0.5, and the square root of the AVE value of each latent variable was greater than its correlation coefficient with other variables (Table 4), indicating that the scale data had ideal convergent validity and discriminant validity. Overall, the scale data had good reliability and validity, making it suitable for analyzing the conceptual model [48].
4.3. Main Effect Testing
The research hypotheses regarding the pro-environmental behaviors of tourists in agricultural cultural heritage sites were tested using the Amos 23.0 structural equation model, with the results presented in Table 5 and Figure 2. Based on a significance level of p < 0.05, it can be concluded that environmental concern has a significant positive impact on tourists’ pro-environmental behaviors (β = 0.144, p < 0.05), supporting Hypothesis H1. The underlying reason is that tourists with strong environmental concerns often have a deeper understanding and awareness of environmental issues. This cognition translates into a positive attitude towards environmental protection. Moreover, they are more inclined to believe that protecting the environment is everyone’s responsibility and are willing to make efforts towards it. Additionally, environmental concern has a significant positive effect on natural empathy (β = 0.688, p < 0.001), confirming Hypothesis H2. This is because individuals with high environmental concern are more likely to actively learn and understand environmental knowledge and information, thereby enhancing their environmental awareness and literacy. This knowledge and information helps individuals comprehend the value and significance of the natural environment more comprehensively, thereby strengthening their natural empathy. Furthermore, environmental concern has a significant positive impact on ecological anxiety (β = 0.421, p < 0.001), validating Hypothesis H3. The underlying reason is that when tourists focus on severe environmental issues such as the greenhouse effect, biodiversity loss, and environmental pollution, they may experience negative emotions like fear and worry, which constitute the main aspects of ecological anxiety. Individuals who hold a high level of concern for environmental issues may be more prone to ecological anxiety because their worries and attention to environmental issues make them more sensitive to the severity and urgency of these issues.
4.4. Mediating Effect Testing
This study further verifies the mediation effect hypotheses using the bootstrapping method. By utilizing Model 6 of the Process program in SPSS(ver.26.0) software (Model 6 is a mediation model with a continuous mediator), the mediating roles of natural empathy and ecological anxiety between environmental concern and tourists’ pro-environmental behaviors were tested, with controls for gender, age, education, occupation, and income. The results are presented in Table 4.
As can be seen from Table 6, the indirect effects of environmental concern on tourists’ pro-environmental behaviors mainly operate through three paths. Firstly, environmental concern can influence tourists’ pro-environmental behaviors through natural empathy (β = 0.223, 95% CI = [0.125, 0.335]), supporting Hypothesis H4. The reason is that when tourists are immersed in agricultural cultural heritage sites and exposed to this unique ecosystem, their empathy for the natural environment is enhanced. Natural empathy increases tourists’ sensitivity to environmental issues and prompts them to consider the impact of their behaviors on the environment, thereby adopting more environmentally friendly behaviors. Secondly, environmental concern can affect tourists’ pro-environmental behaviors through ecological anxiety (β = 0.085, 95% CI = [0.031, 0.148]), supporting Hypothesis H5. The reason is that ecological anxiety represents individuals’ worries, fears, or unease about ecological and environmental issues. When tourists’ levels of environmental concern increase, they are more likely to remain vigilant about environmental issues and subsequently experience ecological anxiety. Ecological anxiety can stimulate tourists’ sense of responsibility and urgency, making them more proactive in adopting pro-environmental behaviors. Lastly, environmental concern positively and sequentially influences tourists’ pro-environmental behaviors through natural empathy and ecological anxiety (β = 0.046, 95% CI = [0.015, 0.086]), supporting Hypothesis H6. The reason is that environmental concern inherently stimulates tourists’ natural empathy, enabling them to deeply feel and understand the value and vulnerability of the natural environment, which further triggers anxiety about ecological issues. This ecological anxiety, as an emotional drive, prompts tourists to adopt active pro-environmental behaviors to alleviate their inner unease and concerns, thereby achieving the protection and sustainable use of the natural environment.
4.5. Heterogeneity Testing
To further investigate whether there is group heterogeneity in the impact of natural empathy and ecological anxiety on tourists’ pro-environmental behavior, a heterogeneity analysis was conducted by grouping based on the gender variable. The analysis results are shown in Table 7. Firstly, the influence of natural empathy on tourists’ pro-environmental behavior is significant for both males and females. However, the explanatory power is higher for males than for females (β = 0.471, p < 0.01; β = 0.257, p < 0.01). This indicates that, while both males and females can evoke tourist behavior through natural empathy, males are more prone to resonating with species in the ecological environment, thereby consciously engaging in pro-environmental behaviors as tourists. Furthermore, regarding the impact of ecological anxiety on tourists’ pro-environmental behavior, it is significant for the female group (β = 0.214, p < 0.01), but not for the male group. This suggests that, compared to males, females are more susceptible to ecological anxiety, which promotes the emergence of pro-environmental behaviors among tourists. In summary, different genders exhibit variations in emotions elicited by the context of agricultural cultural heritage sites.
5. Conclusions and Insights
5.1. Discussion
Firstly, tourists’ environmental concern exhibits a significant positive influence on their pro-environmental behavior, with a path coefficient of 0.144 that is significant at the 5% level. The research findings further indicate that when tourists gain a deeper understanding and recreational experience of agricultural cultural heritage sites, they develop a sense of natural connection to preserving the biodiversity and the dependent ecosystem structures and processes. This prompts tourists to feel concerned about and inclined to protect the ecosystems and traditional cultures of these heritage sites. These findings are generally consistent with the conclusions drawn by Lee and Jan [31]. Tourists with environmental concerns exhibit obvious prosocial attributes, focusing on the sustainable sharing of agricultural heritage sites among environmental interest groups globally or regionally. They proactively engage in pro-environmental behaviors and recognize that agricultural heritage sites should provide “universal well-being”, benefiting both the present and future generations. At the same time, environmentally concerned tourists also consider the inherent characteristics of agricultural heritage sites, such as narrow ecosystem tolerance, poor ecological stability, and significant vulnerability of resources and environments. During their recreational experiences, these considerations lead to value cognition and environmental theories, further promoting environmentally concerned tourists to directly incline towards engaging in pro-environmental behaviors.
Secondly, natural empathy and ecological anxiety play sequential mediating roles between tourists’ environmental concern and their pro-environmental behavior (β = 0.046, 95% CI = [0.015, 0.086]). Berenguer mentioned that things that induce natural empathy often bring transcendent experiences and make individuals perceive that everything in the world is interconnected and interdependent [49]. Decety and Agoston also pointed out that natural empathy and ecological anxiety are often accompanied by feelings of connection, which prompt individuals to affiliate themselves with the external and broader world, such as the natural environment [50,51]. On this basis, environmentally concerned tourists will consider that heritage sites should safeguard their interests in life continuation, survival status, lifestyle, and future development. They immerse themselves in the living conditions of the organisms in agricultural heritage sites and do not feel environmental guilt towards the negative environmental interference caused by ecological recreational activities in heritage sites. At the same time, environmentally concerned tourists will also experience regret and fear due to the subsequent impacts caused by their irregular and unrestrained ecological recreational activities. They feel anxious about the negative interference with the environmental system caused by ecological factors in heritage sites, which stimulates tourists to engage in pro-environmental behaviors such as implementing normative recreational behaviors, protecting ecosystems, maintaining environmental quality, and engaging in daily green consumption.
Lastly, the influence of natural empathy and ecological anxiety on tourists’ pro-environmental behavior varies by gender. Firstly, according to the aforementioned empirical results, women are more prone to engaging in pro-environmental behavior through ecological anxiety, with a path coefficient of 0.214 that is significant at the 1% level. The research findings further suggest that women tend to be more emotionally and psychologically delicate and sensitive than men. When confronted with environmental issues, they may be more likely to notice environmental damage and resource waste in daily life, and they may more easily feel the emotional impact of ecological destruction, subsequently leading to anxiety. This emotional sensitivity prompts them to develop a stronger concern for environmental issues. Meanwhile, social cognitive theory indicates that how individuals understand and interpret information in the environment influences their behavior. Females’ profound perceptions of environmental issues may translate into motivation for engaging in pro-environmental behavior. Secondly, both males and females exhibit a significant positive influence on pro-environmental behavior induced by natural empathy, with path coefficients of 0.471 and 0.257, respectively, both significant at the 1% level. However, contrary to widespread societal perceptions, this study finds that males are more likely to develop natural empathy than females (0.471 > 0.257). This may be because, compared to females, males have stronger resilience and stress resistance, so they experience greater pressures and a relatively wider range of event types during their growth. Although they may lack in emotional expression, it does not mean they cannot empathize. On the contrary, they can better understand the environments in which nature’s species exist and the pressures that the environment brings to life. Therefore, males are more prone to developing natural empathy, which triggers their own pro-environmental behavior.
5.2. Conclusions
In recent years, one of the hot topics in tourism research has been exploring the mechanisms influencing tourists’ pro-environmental behavior from a psychological perspective. Natural empathy is a crucial variable affecting tourists’ pro-environmental behavior, yet few studies have focused on the mechanisms underlying tourists’ pro-environmental behavior from the angle of harmonious coexistence between humans and nature. In light of this, the present study takes the Anxi Tieguanyin Tea Culture System, a global agricultural cultural heritage site, as an example. From the perspective of tourists visiting agricultural cultural heritage sites, it employs structural equation modeling to investigate the relationships and underlying mechanisms among tourists’ environmental concern, natural empathy, ecological anxiety, and pro-environmental behavior. The research findings indicate that environmental concern positively impacts tourists’ pro-environmental behavior. Furthermore, natural empathy and ecological anxiety not only significantly mediate between environmental concern and tourists’ pro-environmental behavior, but also exhibit a sequential chain-mediation effect. Lastly, the influence of natural empathy and ecological anxiety on pro-environmental behavior differs among tourists of different genders. This study provides a detailed portrayal of the decision-making psychology of tourists during eco-tourism at agricultural cultural heritage sites, offering new insights into understanding tourists’ pro-environmental behavior and related psychological research.
5.3. Theoretical Contributions
-
(1). Enriched Research Perspectives on Tourists’ Pro-Environmental Behavior
Most existing research has approached tourists’ pro-environmental behavior from the perspective of the tourists themselves, adopting a “spectator” viewpoint, akin to the research angles of scholars such as Zeng and Wan, who explored the influencing factors of pro-environmental behavior within the context of human society [7,8]. Additionally, scholars like Tu have investigated the factors influencing tourists’ pro-environmental behavior from the perspective of host–guest interactions [46]. These perspectives all examine the drivers of pro-environmental behavior through the human lens, but they overlook the impact of considering tourists as “participants” who engage with the environment from the perspective of other living beings within that setting. Chen et al. previously suggested that adopting the perspective of nature itself can also lead to pro-environmental behavior [26]. Therefore, this study, from the perspective of humans and nature, investigates the chain reaction of tourists’ natural empathy and ecological anxiety on individual environmental concern and pro-environmental behavior, not only making a useful supplement to current research, but also linking the feelings of organisms in nature with human behavior, providing a new perspective. At the same time, focusing on World Agricultural Heritage Sites, this study, in terms of questionnaire design, draws on mature scales from previous research and combines questionnaire items with the context of agricultural heritage sites, integrating a scale applicable to relevant variables of World Agricultural Heritage Sites, which can be used as a reference for subsequent research related to World Agricultural Heritage Sites.
-
(2). Enriched the Mechanism of Tourists’ Pro-Environmental Behavior
This study understands the impact of tourist behavior from the process of emotional response, exploring the chain mediation of natural empathy and ecological anxiety between tourists’ environmental concern and pro-environmental behavior, enriching research in the field of pro-environmental behavior. Previous literature on tourists’ pro-environmental behavior has primarily focused on the cognitive aspect, with researchers like Nguyen et al. suggesting that environmental values are crucial antecedents for tourists’ pro-environmental behaviors [9]. However, there has been limited exploration of the link between tourists’ psychology and behavior. Based on the “cognition–affect–conation” theory, this paper argues that individuals’ cognition of environmental issues stimulates their environmental emotions, which subsequently influence the occurrence and path transformation of their pro-environmental behaviors. This is further integrated with Chen’s research on natural empathy and pro-environmental behavior [33]. Further analysis reveals that natural empathy can expand tourists’ resonance with organisms in agricultural heritage sites, generating compassion. At the same time, compared to natural empathy, tourists with environmental concern may also experience anxiety due to excessive consideration of the negative impacts of their own eco-tourism activities, which in turn prompts compensatory responses of environmental responsible behavior, thereby stimulating tourists to implement pro-environmental behavior. This also verifies Tang’s empirical analysis under the “cognitive–affective–conative” theoretical model [52], which concludes that tourists’ environmental emotions as a mediating variable influence tourists’ environmental behavior. This study deeply analyzes the internal emotional mechanism of tourists’ cognition (environmental concern) transforming into action (pro-environmental behavior), which is a supplement to the existing cognitive perspective. Specifically, this study confirms that natural empathy and ecological anxiety are important transmission mechanisms for tourists’ environmental concern to induce pro-environmental behavior, revealing the detailed process of individual cognition → emotional arousal → behavioral response, extending the driving process of tourists’ environmental behavior from cognitive motivation to emotional motivation, which helps enrich the mechanism of tourists’ pro-environmental behavior motivation.
5.4. Practical Implications
-
(1). Firstly, enhance tourists’ environmental concern for the Tie Guanyin tea culture system at the cognitive level.
The findings of this study reveal that tourists’ environmental concern positively influences their engagement in pro-environmental behaviors. Therefore, agricultural cultural heritage sites should strive to enhance tourists’ environmental awareness. According to the “cognitive–affective–conative” theory, tourists’ development of ecological emotions and behavioral intentions is predicated on their understanding of the destination. Once they have a certain level of cognition about agricultural cultural heritage sites, they will experience emotional changes based on their situation, leading them to adopt corresponding behaviors. In this regard, agricultural cultural heritage sites can leverage internet big data to establish websites or mobile applications dedicated to global agricultural cultural heritage sites. By utilizing VR and online platform technologies, these sites can provide targeted environmental cognition education to tourists, covering topics such as the evolution of the natural environment in core and buffer zones, authenticity and integrity preservation, Outstanding Universal Value (OUV), and socio-cultural impacts. This approach aims to foster a sense of “kinship” and ecological perspective between tourists and agricultural cultural heritage sites, thereby inducing tourists to develop ecological emotions and concerns for environmental protection within the ecosystem of these heritage sites.
-
(2). Secondly, stimulate tourists’ emotional resonance with the Tie Guanyin Tea Culture System at the affective level.
This study found that natural empathy and ecological anxiety can motivate tourists to autonomously engage in pro-environmental behaviors. Natural empathy primarily arises from individuals’ experiences, whether through recreational activities or through exposure to written materials, images, and videos of animals and plants in natural environments suffering from disasters. Ecological anxiety, on the other hand, is more about individuals’ concerns that current uncivilized activities are detrimental to the sustainable development of the natural eco-environment, expressing worry and regret over the damage to nature. Appropriate stimulation of ecological anxiety can promote environmentally friendly behaviors among individuals or groups. Meanwhile, the degree of emotional response is largely shaped by education and personal living environment, so it is essential to induce tourists’ natural empathy and appropriately stimulate ecological anxiety mainly through contextual means. For example, agricultural cultural heritage sites can install anthropomorphic signs and informational plaques, or create an environmentally themed cartoon character representative of the site, to make the entire heritage site more vivid and anthropomorphic. By placing different forms of this cartoon character along the tourist route, the anthropomorphic effect can awaken tourists’ emotions and evoke natural empathy. Additionally, educational videos at the site can occasionally feature the current status of animals and plants affected by natural disasters, using negative scenarios to stimulate appropriate ecological anxiety in tourists and thereby induce ecological emotions towards the flora and fauna within the agricultural cultural heritage site.
-
(3). Lastly, encourage tourists to participate in ecological protection and heritage preservation actions at the conative level.
The “cognitive–affective–conative” theory suggests that tourists generate specific emotional responses through the processing of knowledge and information and make purposeful decisions based on these responses. To better engage tourists in the protection of the ecological environment of agricultural cultural heritage sites, these sites can not only stimulate tourists’ emotions through their image, but also design unique activities that enhance tourists’ experiences. By doing so, tourists’ emotions are intensified, providing them with an immersive feeling. Agricultural cultural heritage sites can establish cultural transmission bases or workshops, inviting local masters to teach skills and cultural knowledge. Encouraging tourists to participate in learning and experiencing these activities allows them to record and express their feelings and understanding of the heritage sites in their preferred ways. This strengthens tourists’ understanding of the agricultural cultural heritage sites and, through their personal experiences, evokes emotions towards the ecosystem of these sites, thereby inducing pro-environmental behaviors.
5.5. Limitations and Future Research
This study explores the influence mechanism of tourists’ pro-environmental behavior in global agricultural heritage sites, but there are still some deficiencies that need further improvement and refinement. On one hand, from the perspective of the relationship between humans and nature, this study considers tourists’ emotions towards nature as the driving factor for pro-environmental behavior. However, emotional characteristics also vary among individuals based on their personal characteristics. Future research can consider incorporating variables related to individual characteristics to explore these differences. On the other hand, when filling out questionnaires, tourists may have a tendency to conform to societal expectations and choose options that do not align with their actual behavior. In the future, experimental methods, observation methods, and in-depth interview methods can be used to reduce the limitations of self-administered questionnaires.
Conceptualization, W.W., L.M., Y.M. and S.F.; methodology, W.W., L.M., Y.M. and S.F.; software, W.W. and L.M.; writing—original draft preparation, W.W. and L.M.; investigation, W.W., L.M., X.C., Y.C., Y.M. and S.F.; supervision, W.W., L.M., X.C., Y.C., Y.M. and S.F.; project administration, L.M., Y.M. and S.F.; funding acquisition, S.F. and L.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Ethical review and approval were waived for this study as data came from a questionnaire, and the interviewees completed the questionnaire voluntarily.
Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
Data are contained within the article.
The authors also thank “Multifunctional Agricultural Application Research Institute of Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University” for their support.
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Footnotes
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
![View Image - Figure 2. Structural equation model. Note: *** indicates p [less than] 0.001, ** indicates p [less than] 0.01.](https://media.proquest.com/media/hms/THUM/4/cvsMa?_a=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%2BgIBWYIDA1dlYooDHENJRDoyMDI1MDUwMzAyMzc1ODY0Njo4NDA5ODQ%3D&_s=uyEAf%2F2hFgUMZ%2B1oqEkksNZxhk0%3D "View Image - Figure 2. Structural equation model. Note: *** indicates p [less than] 0.001, ** indicates p [less than] 0.01.")
Enlarge this image.Figure 2. Structural equation model. Note: *** indicates p [less than] 0.001, ** indicates p [less than] 0.01.
Demographic variable description (N = 452).
| Variable | Category | Frequency | Percentage (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | Male | 178 | 39.4 |
| Female | 274 | 60.6 | |
| Age | 18–30 years | 173 | 38.3 |
| 31–40 years | 177 | 39.2 | |
| 41–50 years | 50 | 11.1 | |
| Over 50 years | 52 | 11.5 | |
| Educational Level | High school and below | 78 | 17.3 |
| Bachelor’s and associate degree | 307 | 67.9 | |
| Graduate studies | 67 | 14.8 | |
| Occupation | Worker | 64 | 14.2 |
| Farmer | 15 | 3.3 | |
| Businessperson | 70 | 15.5 | |
| Public service | 175 | 38.7 | |
| Student | 76 | 16.8 | |
| Retiree | 21 | 4.6 | |
| Other | 31 | 6.9 | |
| Monthly Income | Below RMB 3000 | 69 | 15.3 |
| RMB 3001–6000 | 125 | 27.7 | |
| RMB 6001–9000 | 121 | 26.8 | |
| RMB 9001–12,000 | 94 | 20.8 | |
| Above RMB 12,000 | 43 | 9.5 |
Reliability and validity test results.
| Variable | Measurement Items | Factor Loading | AVE | CR | Cronbach’s α |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Environmental concern | I am aware that the destruction of agricultural heritage sites often leads to severe consequences. | 0.758 | 0.612 | 0.863 | 0.862 |
| I recognize that the spaces and resources of agricultural heritage are finite. | 0.787 | ||||
| I notice that agricultural heritage is currently being abused and destroyed. | 0.804 | ||||
| I understand that agricultural heritage sites are fragile and susceptible to damage. | 0.780 | ||||
| Natural empathy | I worry about the safety of the organisms within agricultural heritage sites. | 0.778 | 0.644 | 0.878 | 0.878 |
| I attempt to understand the feelings of organisms within agricultural heritage sites from their perspective. | 0.818 | ||||
| I imagine myself in the position of the agricultural heritage site and its inhabitants. | 0.810 | ||||
| I visualize the challenging situations faced by the organisms within agricultural heritage sites. | 0.803 | ||||
| Ecological anxiety | I ponder about future environmental issues facing agricultural heritage sites. | 0.783 | 0.663 | 0.887 | 0.887 |
| I reflect on past environmental events related to agricultural heritage sites. | 0.825 | ||||
| I feel anxious about the potential impact my travel activities may have on the environment of agricultural heritage sites. | 0.837 | ||||
| I feel anxious about assuming personal responsibility for addressing environmental problems within agricultural heritage sites. | 0.811 | ||||
| Pro-environmental | I collect my trash and do not litter while at agricultural heritage sites. | 0.785 | 0.631 | 0.895 | 0.895 |
| I actively seek out and purchase tea from agricultural heritage sites that is free from pesticides or chemicals. | 0.799 | ||||
| I encourage my companions to dispose of their trash in bins or recycling containers. | 0.799 | ||||
| If certain areas within agricultural heritage sites require restoration for environmental reasons, I voluntarily refrain from visiting those areas. | 0.770 | ||||
| I participate in volunteer activities within agricultural heritage sites to support their environmental conservation efforts. | 0.819 |
Note: CR = composite reliability, AVE = average variance extracted.
Fit index.
| X2 | DF | X2/DF | GFI | AGFI | NFI | IFI | CFI | RMSEA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 308.744 | 113 | 2.732 | 0.923 | 0.895 | 0.938 | 0.960 | 0.959 | 0.062 |
Fornell–Larcker criterion.
| Environmental Concern | Natural Empathy | Ecological Anxiety | Pro-Environmental Behavior | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Environmental concern | 0.782 | |||
| Natural empathy | 0.688 ** | 0.802 | ||
| Ecological anxiety | 0.683 ** | 0.67 ** | 0.814 | |
| Pro-environmental behavior | 0.574 ** | 0.657 ** | 0.588 ** | 0.794 |
Note: ** indicates p < 0.01. The numbers on the diagonal represent the square root of the average variance extracted (AVE).
Hypothesis testing results.
| Hypotheses | Effect [β-Value] | BootSE [STDEV] | t-Value | Result |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Environmental concern → Pro-environmental behavior | 0.144 ** | 0.078 | 2.027 | valid |
| Environmental concern → Natural empathy | 0.688 *** | 0.062 | 11.957 | valid |
| Environmental concern → Ecological anxiety | 0.421 *** | 0.073 | 6.399 | valid |
Note: *** indicates p < 0.001, ** indicates p < 0.01.
Results of mediating effect test.
| Hypotheses | Effect | BootSE | LLCI | ULCI | Percentage of Effect |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total Indirect Effect | 0.354 | 0.049 | 0.257 | 0.453 | 66.93% |
| Environmental concern → Natural empathy → Pro-environmental behavior | 0.223 | 0.053 | 0.125 | 0.335 | 42.18% |
| Environmental concern → Ecological anxiety → Pro-environmental behavior | 0.085 | 0.030 | 0.031 | 0.148 | 16.12% |
| Environmental concern → Natural empathy → Ecological anxiety → Pro-environmental behavior | 0.046 | 0.018 | 0.015 | 0.086 | 8.63% |
Gender-based heterogeneity analysis.
| Variable | Male | Female |
|---|---|---|
| Pro-Environmental Behavior | Pro-Environmental Behavior | |
| Natural empathy | 0.471 ** (5.473) | 0.257 ** (4.681) |
| Ecological anxiety | 0.153 (1.911) | 0.214 ** (3.913) |
| Control Variable | Control | Control |
| Observed Value | 178 | 274 |
| R2 | 0.367 | 0.457 |
Note: ** indicates p < 0.01.
References
1. Lee, C.-K.; Olya, H.; Park, Y.-N.; Kwon, Y.-J.; Kim, M.J. Sustainable intelligence and cultural worldview as triggers to preserve heritage tourism resources. Tour. Geogr.; 2022; 25, pp. 899-918. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14616688.2021.2016934]
2. Wang, Y.; Wang, Y.; Zhang, D.; Zhang, T.; Duan, J.; Wang, K.; Wang, A. A toponymic cultural heritage protection evaluation method considering environmental effects in a context of cultural tourism integration. Curr. Issues Tour.; 2023; 26, pp. 1162-1182. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2022.2049713]
3. Agnoletti, M.; Santoro, A. Agricultural heritage systems and agrobiodiversity. Biodivers. Conserv.; 2022; 31, pp. 2231-2241. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10531-022-02460-3]
4. Frey, B.S.; Briviba, A. A policy proposal to deal with excessive cultural tourism. Eur. Plan. Stud.; 2021; 29, pp. 601-618. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2021.1903841]
5. Mekonnen, H.; Bires, Z.; Berhanu, K. Practices and challenges of cultural heritage conservation in historical and religious heritage sites: Evidence from North Shoa Zone, Amhara Region, Ethiopia. Herit. Sci.; 2022; 10, 172. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40494-022-00802-6]
6. Nian, S.; Li, D.; Zhang, J.; Lu, S.; Zhang, X. Stimulus-Organism-Response Framework: Is the Perceived Outstanding Universal Value Attractiveness of Tourists Beneficial to World Heritage Site Conservation?. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health; 2023; 20, 1189. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20021189]
7. Zeng, J.; Jiang, M.; Yuan, M. Environmental Risk Perception, Risk Culture, and Pro-Environmental Behavior. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health; 2020; 17, 1750. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17051750]
8. Wan, Q.; Du, W. Social Capital, Environmental Knowledge, and Pro-Environmental Behavior. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health; 2022; 19, 1443. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19031443]
9. Nguyen, H.V.; Do, L.T.; Le, M.T.T. From environmental values to pro-environmental consumption behaviors: The mod-erating role of environmental information. Curr. Psychol.; 2024; 43, pp. 3607-3620. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12144-023-04569-2]
10. Chen, Y.; Zhang, S.; Peng, P.; Fan, S.; Liang, J.; Ye, J.; Ma, Y. Formation Mechanism of Tourists’ Pro-Environmental Behavior in Wuyishan National Park, China, Based on Ecological Values. Forests; 2024; 15, 777. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/f15050777]
11. Pong, V.; Tam, K.-P. Relationship between global identity and pro-environmental behavior and environmental concern: A systematic review. Front. Psychol.; 2023; 14, 1033564. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1033564] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37139003]
12. Ma, Y.; Tang, H.; Ren, J. Tourists’ risk perceptions and pro-environmental behaviour during the pandemic: The roles of environmental concern and environmental ethics reflection. Curr. Issues Tour.; 2024; pp. 1-18. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2024.2351145]
13. Duan, Y.L.; Wu, J. Sport tourist perceptions of destination image and revisit intentions: An adaption of Mehrabi-an-Russell’s environmental psychology model. Heliyon; 2024; 10, e31810. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e31810] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38828342]
14. Li, S.; Chen, F.; Gu, X. Effects of Group Emotion and Moral Belief on Pro-Environmental Behavior: The Mediating Role of Psychological Clustering. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Heal.; 2022; 19, 11190. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191811190] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36141475]
15. Chirico, A.; Pizzolante, M.; Borghesi, F.; Bartolotta, S.; Sarcinella, E.D.; Cipresso, P.; Gaggioli, A. “Standing Up for Earth rights”: Awe-Inspiring Virtual Nature for Promoting Pro-Environmental Behaviors. Cyberpsychology Behav. Soc. Netw.; 2023; 26, pp. 300-308. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2022.0260]
16. Sangervo, J.; Jylhä, K.M.; Pihkala, P. Climate anxiety: Conceptual considerations, and connections with climate hope and action. Glob. Environ. Change; 2022; 76, 102569. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2022.102569]
17. Wang, C.; Zheng, Q.; Zeng, H.; Lai, R.; Xu, A. Can Anthropomorphic Slogans Awaken Tourists’ Environmental Responsibility Behavior? Experimental Study Based on Frame Effect Perspective. SAGE Open; 2023; 13, [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/21582440221144969]
18. Xu, L.; Wang, C.; Zheng, Q.; Xu, A. RESEARCH ON THE IMPACT OF PRO-ENVIRONMENTAL BEHAVIOUR ON ECO-TOURISM CON-SUMPTION FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF SELF-COGNITION. J. Environ. Prot. Ecol.; 2022; 23, pp. 2019-2026.
19. McGrew, K.S. The Cognitive-Affective-Motivation Model of Learning (CAMML): Standing on the Shoulders of Giants. Can. J. Sch. Psychol.; 2021; 37, pp. 117-134. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/08295735211054270]
20. Pramanik, S.A.K. Influences of the underlying dimensions of destination image on destination loyalty in a cultural heritage destination. Asia Pac. J. Tour. Res.; 2023; 28, pp. 984-999. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10941665.2023.2283001]
21. Hilgard, E.R. The trilogy of mind: Cognition, affection, and conation. J. Hist. Behav. Sci.; 1980; 16, pp. 107-117. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/1520-6696(198004)16:2<107::AID-JHBS2300160202>3.0.CO;2-Y] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11608381]
22. Lim, S.H.; Kim, D.J. Does Emotional Intelligence of Online Shoppers Affect Their Shopping Behavior? From a Cognitive-Affective-Conative Framework Perspective. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact.; 2020; 36, pp. 1304-1313. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2020.1739882]
23. Huang, D.; Chen, Q.; Huang, S.; Liu, X. Consumer intention to use service robots: A cognitive–affective–conative framework. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag.; 2023; 36, pp. 1893-1913. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-12-2022-1528]
24. Cao, Y.; Qin, X.; Li, J.; Long, Q.; Hu, B. Exploring seniors’ continuance intention to use mobile social network sites in China: A cognitive-affective-conative model. Univers. Access Inf. Soc.; 2022; 21, pp. 71-92. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10209-020-00762-3]
25. Amin, M.; Herjanto, H. Should I donate secondhand clothes? Cognitive, affective, and conative model during the COVID-19 pandemic. J. Soc. Mark.; 2023; 13, pp. 149-171. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JSOCM-12-2021-0279]
26. Chen, X.; Tang, J.; Liu, P. How place attachment affects pro-environmental behaviors: The role of empathy with nature and nature relatedness. Curr. Psychol.; 2024; 43, pp. 20571-20583. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12144-024-05820-0]
27. Hickman, C. We need to (find a way to) talk about horizontal ellipsis Eco-anxiety. J. Soc. Work Pract.; 2020; 34, pp. 411-424. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02650533.2020.1844166]
28. Li, Z.; Wu, J.; Deng, S. The effect of destination social responsibility on tourists’ pro-environmental behavior. Asia Pac. J. Tour. Res.; 2022; 27, pp. 1233-1246. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10941665.2023.2174038]
29. Sun, J.; Ma, B.; Wei, S. Same gratitude, different pro-environmental behaviors? Effect of the dual-path influence mechanism of gratitude on pro-environmental behavior. J. Clean. Prod.; 2023; 415, 137779. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.137779]
30. Dietz, T.; Kalof, L.; Stern, P.C. Gender, values, and environmentalism. Soc. Sci. Q.; 2002; 83, pp. 353-364. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1540-6237.00088]
31. Lee, T.H.; Jan, F.-H. The Effects of Recreation Experience, Environmental Attitude, and Biospheric Value on the Environmentally Responsible Behavior of Nature-Based Tourists. Environ. Manag.; 2015; 56, pp. 193-208. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00267-015-0488-y] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25840700]
32. Schultz, P.W.; Gouveia, V.V.; Cameron, L.D.; Tankha, G.; Schmuck, P.; Franěk, M. Values and their Relationship to Environmental Concern and Conservation Behavior. J. Cross-Cult. Psychol.; 2005; 36, pp. 457-475. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022022105275962]
33. Chen, G.; Zou, M.; Ran, N.; Yan, B.; Li, S. The effects of environmental empathy and sustainable intelligence on wetland tourists’ revisit intention using an extended model of goal-directed behavior. J. Clean. Prod.; 2023; 419, 138288. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.138288]
34. Singer, T. The neuronal basis and ontogeny of empathy and mind reading: Review of literature and implications for future research. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev.; 2006; 30, pp. 855-863. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2006.06.011] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16904182]
35. Kurth, C.; Pihkala, P. Eco-anxiety: What it is and why it matters. Front. Psychol.; 2022; 13, 981814. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.981814]
36. Pihkala, P. ECO-ANXIETY, TRAGEDY, AND HOPE: PSYCHOLOGICAL AND SPIRITUAL DIMENSIONS OF CLI-MATE CHANGE. Zygon: J. Relig. Sci.; 2018; 53, pp. 545-569. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/zygo.12407]
37. Pihkala, P. The Process of Eco-Anxiety and Ecological Grief: A Narrative Review and a New Proposal. Sustainability; 2022; 14, 16628. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su142416628]
38. Latkin, C.A.; Dayton, L.; Lee, D.-I.; Yi, G.; Uzzi, M. Correlates of Levels of Willingness to Engage in Climate Change Actions in the United States. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Heal.; 2021; 18, 9204. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18179204]
39. Chen, X.; Cheng, Z.; Yang, H. Empowering pro-environmental behavior in tourists through digital media: The influence of eco-guilt and empathy with nature. Front. Psychol.; 2024; 15, 1387817. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1387817]
40. Mathers-Jones, J.; Todd, J. Ecological anxiety and pro-environmental behaviour: The role of attention. J. Anxiety Disord.; 2023; 98, 102745. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2023.102745]
41. Kuhnert, R.-L.; Begeer, S.; Fink, E.; de Rosnay, M. Gender-differentiated effects of theory of mind, emotion understanding, and social preference on prosocial behavior development: A longitudinal study. J. Exp. Child Psychol.; 2017; 154, pp. 13-27. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2016.10.001] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27780091]
42. Montoya, A.K.; Hayes, A.F. Two-condition within-participant statistical mediation analysis: A path-analytic framework. Psychol. Methods; 2017; 22, pp. 6-27. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/met0000086] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27362267]
43. Zeng, X.Y. Parents’ environmental knowledge and perception of young children’s nature connectedness: The serial me-diating role of parents’ environmental concern and parent-child engagement. J. Psychol. Afr.; 2024; 34, pp. 13-18.
44. Tam, K.P. Dispositional empathy with nature. J. Environ. Psychol.; 2013; 35, pp. 92-104. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.05.004]
45. Heinzel, S.; Tschorn, M.; Schulte-Hutner, M.; Schäfer, F.; Reese, G.; Pohle, C.; Peter, F.; Neuber, M.; Liu, S.; Keller, J. et al. Anxiety in response to the climate and environmental crises: Validation of the Hogg Eco-Anxiety Scale in Germany. Front. Psychol.; 2023; 14, 1239425. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1239425]
46. Tu, H.; Ma, J. Does Positive Contact Between Residents and Tourists Stimulate Tourists’ Environmentally Re-sponsible Behavior? The Role of Gratitude and Boundary Conditions. J. Travel Res.; 2022; 61, pp. 1774-1790. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/00472875211048938]
47. Zheng, Q.; Zhang, S.; Liang, J.; Chen, Y.; Ye, W. The Impact of Cultural Memory and Cultural Identity in the Brand Value of Agricultural Heritage: A Moderated Mediation Model. Behav. Sci.; 2023; 13, 79. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/bs13020079]
48. Zhang, S.; Liang, J.; Ma, Y.; Chen, Y.; He, Q. Destination image, nostalgic feeling, flow experience and agritourism: An empirical study of Yunling Tea Estate in Anxi, China. Front. Psychol.; 2022; 13, 954299. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.954299]
49. Berenguer, J. The Effect of Empathy in Proenvironmental Attitudes and Behaviors. Environ. Behav.; 2007; 39, pp. 269-283. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013916506292937]
50. Decety, J.; Bartal, I.B.-A.; Uzefovsky, F.; Knafo-Noam, A. Empathy as a driver of prosocial behaviour: Highly conserved neurobehavioural mechanisms across species. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B: Biol. Sci.; 2016; 371, [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2015.0077]
51. Ágoston, C.; Urbán, R.; Nagy, B.; Csaba, B.; Kőváry, Z.; Kovács, K.; Varga, A.; Dúll, A.; Mónus, F.; Shaw, C.A. et al. The psychological consequences of the ecological crisis: Three new questionnaires to assess eco-anxiety, eco-guilt, and ecological grief. Clim. Risk Manag.; 2022; 37, 100441. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.crm.2022.100441]
52. Tang, H.; Ma, Y.; Ren, J. Influencing factors and mechanism of tourists’ pro-environmental behavior—Empirical analysis of the CAC-MOA integration model. Front. Psychol.; 2022; 13, 1060404. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1060404] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36518952]
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
Details
; Fan, Shuisheng 4 1 College of Digital Economy, Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University, Quanzhou 362406, China;
2 College of Rural Revitalization, Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University, Fuzhou 350002, China;
3 College of Rural Revitalization, Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University, Fuzhou 350002, China;
4 College of Rural Revitalization, Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University, Fuzhou 350002, China;