1. Introduction
The increase in eco-tourism and the rising consciousness of healthy lifestyles have introduced a golden opportunity for rural areas endowed with natural resources such as lakes. Such regions that were ignored by many are increasingly becoming preferred destinations for those who seek peace and serenity in nature [1]. As a result, interest has grown in green leisure sports as they offer a combination of exercise and environmental appreciation [2]. High-demand activities like kayaking, hiking, and bird-watching allow visitors to uncover various ecosystems and striking landscapes unique to lakeside regions [3]. This combination of eco-tourism and healthy living offers an appealing prospect for sustainable development within rural lake areas. By promoting activities that will help people connect more deeply to nature, these places can attract tourists and promote stewardship and environmental awareness among them [4]. This can also create economic opportunities for local communities through providing green leisure sports services ranging from equipment rentals and guided tours to selling locally grown goods and services. As more people look out for meaningful experiences, prioritizing their own well-being and conserving their environments, rural lake areas are set to blossom into sustainable tourism hotspots and open-air activity centers [5].
Global trends show great demand for green leisure sports, presenting an emerging market of magnitude. The report in 2023 made by the International Eco-tourism Society demonstrated that a remarkable 72% of travelers actively sought eco-friendly travel options [6]. This is especially pronounced among those who include outdoor events in their traveling schedules [7]. Travelers have started considering their environmental impact while choosing locations that offer green leisure sports forms such as kayaking, hiking, or bird-watching [8].
Furthermore, there is evidence from research conducted by NIH in 2022 indicating that participation in green recreation is beneficial across various levels, especially among young people. The study discovered that participating in such activities is linked to increased levels of physical exercise, a key factor in combating sedentarism and promoting overall good health [9]. Also, partaking in green leisure sports led to decreased stress and enhanced mental well-being. Therefore, these findings emphasize the charm of outdoor entertainment and prove the potential capacity of green leisure sports as valuable tools for initiating holistic health promotion intentions that are particularly targeted at the younger generations. The limited research on this topic shows that literacy in the context of green leisure sports has been overlooked in terms of sustainable development in rural lake areas. Scholars believe that constructing low-carbon leisure education literacy can strengthen personal awareness of green leisure and enhance the implementation of friendly leisure and consumption behaviors [10], which help people reduce the pressure on the ecological environment from human damage when engaging in leisure or tourism activities, and maintain a high-quality leisure, tourism or living environment [11].
Local governments can use this influence to shape a clean, safe, and ecologically diverse tourism environment, enhance the public’s positive travel image of the local area, and increase local visibility [12], which can also promote the development of low-carbon leisure sports or eco-tourism industry chains and develop entrepreneurial and employment opportunities [13]. After rural or tourist areas have undertaken improvement measures to revitalize the economy, they can obtain sufficient construction funds and work income. These can help local governments obtain funds for improving infrastructure and staffing for the municipal management, which is beneficial for upgrading public facilities, supplementing manpower for cleaning and security, and ensuring the safety of residents and tourists [14], which can also increase personal income, help to meet the needs of life, leisure, and consumption, and improve the quality of individual and family life [15]. Thus, when rural areas receive sufficient economic development benefits, they can construct safe and hygienic leisure spaces to allow people to engage in leisure activities to improve their physical fitness and gain a sense of health and pleasure. Therefore, we believe people’s low-carbon leisure and educational literacy are conducive to the positive development of rural areas and the ecology, and increase economic benefits. These should also lead to the formation of a leisure consumption model, increase the income of the government, enterprises, and people, improve public facilities, increase employment opportunities, and improve people’s quality of life, as well as protecting people’s health and well-being, creating a situation that benefits all parties. This theory of human behavior and development patterns is conducive to the goal of sustainable development for humanity and the Earth’s environment, and is in line with the UN’s SDGs [16]. However, it looks very promising [17]. Studies have been conducted into the economic benefits of eco-tourism and health benefits derivable from outdoor activities [18]; however, there is not much information about these two aspects connected with green leisure sports literacy. Green leisure sports literacy refers to knowledge skills and attitudes necessary for responsible, safe involvement in such activities [19].
The study aims to close this educational gap and assess how green leisure sporting education can contribute to the sustainable development of rural lake areas [20]. For young people’s health and living conditions to not be negatively impacted, environmental impacts on the ecosystem of a lake need to be evaluated, together with economic benefits that accrue to local populations [21]. Therefore, the study assesses green literacy sports in rural communities. First, the analysis employs job creation, income generation, and business stimulation at the local level, thus helping to examine the economic influences of such sports in these regions. The economic dynamics of kayaking, hiking, and bird-watching are studied in this research to determine how green leisure sports foster sustainable economic growth and rural livelihoods. Additionally, it aims to explore the effects of green leisure sports on the lake ecosystem in terms of pollution, habitat preservation, and responsible resource use. To prevent potential environmental impacts from those activities under consideration, their contribution towards environment conservation will be analyzed alongside sustainable ecosystem management. This final section investigates how eco-literacy for fun time affects health habits among youth in rural areas. Therefore, it concentrates on physical activity, nature-based stress reduction, and holistic health benefits. Lastly, three goals show how plans laid down for implementation have changed due to having this kind of knowledge.
The theoretical framework and context for this study are established by a comprehensive literature review. After the literature review, the methodology section describes the research design, data collection, and analytical methods used to study green leisure sports literacy and sustainable development in rural lake regions. The results section highlights data trends and correlations from quantitative and qualitative analyses. The discussion section compares the findings to previous research, discusses theory and practice, and suggests future research. Finally, the conclusion summarizes the study’s main findings, discusses their significance, and makes policy and practice recommendations.
2. Literature Review
Recently, the multifaceted notion of youth well-being has gained increasing attention, specifically in rural settings that are abundant in natural assets. Youth well-being is a multi-dimensional construct that comprises positive emotions, life satisfaction, and overall quality of life. It reflects the subjective assessments of individuals concerning their social and psychological welfare. This acknowledgment is emphasized by the realization that the welfare of adolescents is closely associated with their surroundings, the social relationships they establish, and the life events they encounter [22]. In rural environments, which are distinguished by their communal lifestyles and intimate connection to the natural world, it is critical to prioritize the comprehension and cultivation of youth well-being to guarantee individuals’ comprehensive growth.
At the core of youth well-being in rural regions is satisfying material necessities and establishing surroundings that foster individual development and social acknowledgment. The confluence of environmental interactions and career prospects significantly impacts the way in which young people perceive their own well-being [23]. Furthermore, there is a growing body of scholarly work that links well-being and happiness, placing particular emphasis on the ways in which economic stability, material contentment, and general health influence the subjective experiences of individuals [24]. Nevertheless, this notion transcends material comfort and encompasses more comprehensive dimensions of life contentment, such as leisure, lifelong enthusiasm, significant life experiences, and high-quality interpersonal connections. These elements collectively contribute to a more holistic comprehension of the well-being of young individuals.
2.1. Youth Well-Being
Youth well-being refers to a multi-dimensional concept that embraces varied aspects of life satisfaction, positive emotions, and the overall quality of life [25]. Well-being is a kind of good feeling or attitude that arises from within an individual as judged by their own subjective consciousness, and has many antecedents such as the environment in which they were brought up, social interactions they have with others, and experiences they are having [26]. Understanding and promoting the well-being of young people is very important in rural areas because the natural environment dramatically influences everyday life [27].
Regarding youth well-being in rural areas, fulfilling their material needs and creating an atmosphere conducive for personal growth and social recognition are crucial. The young will feel more satisfied if career development settings and environmental interactions match these basic requirements. This implies not only the provision of essential needs, but also offers chances for personal as well as professional growth among locals [28].
Happiness is often connected with well-being by scholars who emphasize things like satisfaction with economic conditions, meeting material needs, and general health status [29]. However, it comprises more dimensions other than just being contented. Such aspects include mental and physical relaxation levels, the significance of life experiences for youth, and quality relationships between them and other individuals [30]. These elements enable us to arrive at a better understanding of how young people live healthy lives throughout their existence, since they reflect an overall sense of fulfillment they have experienced throughout their whole lives.
In rural areas where nature is beautiful and there are many opportunities for outdoor recreation, there is a close interplay between general relaxation and zest for life when considering the well-being of children or young people [31]. By participating in green leisure sports such as kayaking down clean lakes or walking through scenic trails, youths may come to appreciate nature while at the same time taking care physically and being mentally refreshed [32]. In addition, these activities provide avenues for meaningful experiences and social interaction, which improve well-being and generally foster greater satisfaction with life.
More social and economic challenges continue to bedevil rural communities, making it increasingly clear that young people’s welfare should be prioritized [33]. The growth of a thriving, resilient rural community hinges on creating enabling environments that address both material, social, and psychological needs concerning young people [34]. Bettering youth’s well-being and fostering vibrant rural communities in the future depends significantly on investing in personal growth promotion initiatives, peer-supportive methods, and access to open-air recreational activities [35]. Therefore, if there is a comprehensive approach that considers all elements of youth well-being, then rural areas have the capacity to bring out the full potential of their young generations for a brighter and more sustainable future for everyone.
2.2. The Relationship Between Low-Carbon Leisure Literacy and the Impacts of Regional Tourism on Economic, Social, Environmental, and Ecological Developments
Low-carbon leisure literacy (LCLL) refers to individuals’ attitudes and behaviors after joining educational programs emphasizing carbon reduction and green energy principles [36]. This concept intersects environmental education with leisure behavior. As people endeavor to develop low-carbon awareness and include eco-friendly practices in their free time, they engage in consumption behaviors that contribute to low-carbon leisure literacy, a much more advanced stage than basic awareness [37]. According to scholars, low-carbon literacy can only be achieved if low-carbon attitudes and behaviors are established as foundational elements of the process. Therefore, communities should encourage residents to adopt these consumption patterns in their tourism activities so that they can harness them for economic gains while preserving the environment [38,39]. In rural areas that rely heavily on tourism, LCLL promotion could spur economic growth, improve living standards, and lead to better infrastructure as well as ecological conservation efforts [40]. Thus, by adopting sustainable leisure practices, people can experience relaxation and economic gains as they save the environment. When adopted into regional tourism strategies, LCLL presents numerous benefits touching on all aspects of life, including economics, society, environment, and ecology [41]. From an economic point of view, it encourages rural communities to diversify revenue streams, thus reducing dependence on resource-intensive industries while taking advantage of the growing demand for eco-friendly tourist experiences around the world [42]. Additionally, local businesses thrive when tourist destinations have quality amenities and infrastructure, attracting more visitors and increasing revenue.
On a social level, LCLL initiatives foster unity between residents and tourists as they consciously participate in activities addressing their impact on the environment. Promoting stewardship over natural resources through sustainability culture-building activities acts as an environmental education platform that facilitates knowledge transfer between generations while sparking responsibilities among younger ones [43]. When it comes to the environment, implementing low-carbon leisure practices can reduce one’s ecological footprint. The deterioration of habitats and the pollution that come with tourism are lessened [43,44]. Rural areas are able to protect their wildlife and keep ecosystems intact by practicing the responsible stewardship of their natural resources. This ensures long-term profitability for the travel industry [44]. Sustainable leisure and tourism planning helps communities strike a balance between economic growth and environmental preservation in order to protect their natural heritage for future generations [45]. As communities learn how to better adapt to climate change, cultivating low-carbon leisure literacy will contribute to this knowledge. By adopting sustainable leisure practices, rural areas can become more resilient against environmental disruptions [46]. Doing so will ensure that tourism remains a key economic driver in the future. Including low-carbon leisure strategies in regional tourism plans promotes development overall. This means prosperity, social cohesion, environmental stewardship, and ecological resilience are also part of the equation [47]. Rural communities can create a more sustainable future if they promote low-carbon behaviors for residents and visitors alike [48].
2.3. Impact of Regional Tourism’s Economic, Social, Environmental, and Ecological Development on Youth Well-Being
The impact of tourism on a region’s economic, social, environmental, and ecological development is an important factor in the well-being of young people. Regional tourism development cognition refers to how people think about the effects of activities that leverage natural landscapes, historical sites, and local culture on their area’s development [49]. Tourism affects more than just the economy; it also profoundly affects social aspects, the environment, and ecology. Tourism can have both positive and negative implications for a community, and so its overall impact is taken into consideration [50]. Scholars have recognized the double-sided nature of the impact that tourism generates. On the one hand, it builds infrastructure and grows economies, but it could also cause pollution or erode cultural traditions [45,51]. Though it faces challenges like these, industry can boost local businesses, develop public infrastructure, and encourage cultural awareness. Another plus is the promotion of ecological conservation efforts or environmental stewardship, which improves the quality of life for locals [52].
The changes brought about by the development of tourism affect the physical environments and shape people’s experiences and perceptions of their homes [53]. Positive changes contribute to a stronger sense of pride in the community with improvements in infrastructure or cultural amenities and environmental awareness [54]. However, negative impacts such as overcrowding, pollution, or commercialization have downsides for residents’ quality of life, especially among young individuals sensitive to their surroundings. Promoting regional tourism while focusing on principles such as low-carbon leisure literacy will help communities minimize negative impacts while maximizing positive outcomes toward bettering youth well-being [55]. This reduces degradation and preserves resources for future generations with sustainable practices such as eco-friendly transportation options or responsible waste management measures. In matters of identity, investing in community engagement and cultural preservation programs works wonders in terms of improving overall well-being [56]. This is because it allows the youngsters to form connections with their most precious roots. Economic sustainability also becomes a priority as employment opportunities for the youth are generated [57]. Learning low-carbon leisure literacy helps them develop skills that can help them thrive in local enterprises that prioritize sustainability and cultural heritage [58].
Tourism development could bring people closer together and stimulate cultural exchanges [59]. Young people get to see the world from different angles when they interact with folks who visit from all walks of life [60]. Additionally, community-led tourism initiatives that emphasize local involvement can create stronger bonds and a sense of responsibility for the well-being of everyone in the area [61].
3. Methodology
To learn more about the impact of green leisure sports literacy and how it affects lake regions, we used quantitative and qualitative methods in this study. We distributed a survey to residents and tourists in a rural lake region so we could better understand their knowledge of the topic. The survey also asked them about their attitudes toward the economic, social, and environmental aspects of these activities, as well as their overall well-being. The data we collected were analyzed to find trends or correlations between green leisure sports literacy and indicators for sustainable development. For the qualitative side of things, we conducted interviews with academics, representatives from the tourism industry, residents from different age groups, and tourists. We did this to gauge how people experience green leisure sports and capture their thoughts and concerns about the sport’s relationship with sustainable development.
3.1. Research Process
This study examines how green leisure education affects sustainable development in the tourism economy. We also investigate its effect on youth well-being in an environmentally sensitive area that includes a lake region, specifically focusing on Taiwan’s Sun Moon Lake and the surrounding villages’ youth population. The study began by looking at a large amount of literature to determine the study’s theme framework and research direction. The research team used what it found about subjective well-being, low-carbon literacy, and rural economic, social, environmental, and ecological development to create a comprehensive questionnaire to capture all relevant variables. After creating the questionnaire, 800 copies were distributed using convenience sampling in July and August 2022. Of these 800 questionnaires, 650 valid responses were received. This means that there was a response rate of 81.25%. Scholar Qiu believes that a sample size of 663 is sufficient for locations with a population of more than 50,000 [62]. With these collected responses, rigorous statistical analysis was conducted using SPSS 26.0 software to try and find any patterns or correlations within them. In addition to this statistical analysis using the SPSS 26.0 software, feedback was sought from the participants (the youth living in the lake region) to enrich the interpretative process. Finally, a multivariate check analysis approach was employed to dive into all implications and nuances within the research findings. Approaching this project with such a comprehensive methodological strategy ensures a thorough exploration of how green leisure education plays a role in sustainable development dynamics while also affecting youth well-being within this specific context—living near Taiwan’s Sun Moon Lake.
3.2. Research Framework and Hypotheses
Low-carbon leisure education literacy can strengthen personal awareness and action in green leisure [10], reduce negative environmental impacts, maintain the leisure, tourism, or living environment [11], enhance visibility [12], promote the development of low-carbon industries and create jobs [13], and enhance rural economic development. These actions should indirectly support rural infrastructure and municipal management funding [14], improve the quality of life of individuals and families [15], and create safe, hygienic leisure space, which is conducive to people getting sufficient time and exercise when engaging in leisure activities, achieving the goal of improving personal health and sense of pleasure, and moving towards the SDGs [16]. Therefore, we believe that people with sufficient low-carbon leisure and education literacy can create positive developments in the rural economy, society, environment, and ecology. When rural areas establish green leisure and tourism consumption behaviors and patterns, it is possible to improve local finances, increase personal and family income, and improve the quality of life, which is conducive to providing young people with safe and hygienic leisure spaces to indulge in leisure and tourism activities, gain sufficient leisure benefits, and achieve the impact of improving personal health and well-being. These are conducive to providing young people with safe and hygienic leisure spaces to indulge in leisure and tourism activities, gain sufficient leisure benefits, and achieve the impact of improving personal health and well-being. The research framework is shown in Figure 1.
Low-carbon leisure education literacy consistently and significantly impacts rural economic development.
Low-carbon leisure education literacy consistently and significantly impacts rural social development.
Low-carbon leisure education literacy consistently and significantly impacts rural environmental development.
Low-carbon leisure education literacy consistently and significantly impacts ecological development.
Rural economic development has a consistent and significant positive impact on youth well-being.
Rural social development consistently, positively, and significantly impacts youth well-being.
Rural environmental development consistently, positively, and significantly impacts youth well-being.
Ecological development consistently, positively, and significantly impacts youth well-being.
3.3. Research Tools, Analysis, and Methods
This research was performed using mixed methods. First, a thorough examination was conducted to analyze the current state of development of Sun Moon Lake. This literature analysis took into account low-carbon leisure awareness, attitude, behavior, and cognition, as well as social, economic, environmental, and ecological development. The people behind this study meticulously created it through SPSS 26.0 statistical software to validate its credibility. Their validity requirements were that the Kaiser–Meyer Olkin (KMO) statistic needed to exceed 0.06 and have a p-value below 0.01 for the Bartlett’s test [63]. Additionally, further testing is needed on questions like the Cronbach alpha coefficient, which requires the numbers to be above 0.60 to be analyzed further [63,64]. After these tests and validations went according to plan, this study was ready for analysis because its strength and reliability were affirmed by all questions tested against these criteria.
As shown in Table 1, this questionnaire tool is divided into the following dimensions: low-carbon leisure awareness (12 questions), economic development (10 questions), social development (8 questions), environmental development (8 questions), ecological development (3 questions), and well-being (4 questions), for a total of 45 questions. The analysis shows that the KMO value for low-carbon leisure awareness is 0.914, the Bartlett approximate χ2 value is 3113.569, df is 66, and the significance is p < 0.001, which is suitable for factor analysis. The scale can explain 57.396%, 7.334%, and 3.592% of the total variation. After factor analysis, issues that are good and reliable are retained. The total alpha value is 0.934, 0.931–0.934. After further factor matrix analysis, it can be divided into awareness, attitude, and behavior. Awareness issues include the following: it is right not to litter (LC1), one should choose low-carbon restaurants or leisure facilities (LC2), one should take public transportation (LC3), and one should buy low-packaging goods (LC4); the α value is 0.620–0.800. Attitude issues include the following: eco-friendly (LA1), low-carbon products are easy to buy (LA2), reasonable prices (LA3), low-carbon leisure is enjoyable (LA4) and low-carbon leisure makes you happy (LA5); the α value is 0.761–0.788. Behavioral issues include being willing to bring their own environmentally friendly tableware (LB1), being willing to buy packaged goods (LB2) and being willing to choose low-carbon transportation (LB3); α value is 0.655–0.784.
The KMO for economic development is 0.926, the Bartlett approximate χ2 value is 5411.9, the df is 45, and the significance is p < 0.001, which is suitable for factor analysis. The scale can explain 56.727% of the total variance. After factor analysis, the remaining questions were found to be good and reliable. The total α value is 0.945, and the α values of the individual questions are 0.937–0.945, respectively. Increase employment opportunities (E1), increase interpretation facilities (E2), increase industrial construction (E3), increase leisure and entertainment opportunities (E4), convenience in leisure or tourism spending (E5), low cost of living and consumption (E6), improve public facilities (E7), improve medical standards (E8), smooth channels for community opinion exchange (E9), and develop creative commodities (E10) were the issues addressed.
Social development’s KMO is 0.912, its Bartlett’s approximate χ2 value is 4586.4, its df is 28, its significance is p < 0.001, and it is suitable for factor analysis. The scale can explain 61.153% of the total variance. After factor analysis, the remaining questions were found to be good and reliable. The total α value is 0.936, and the α values of the questions are 0.934–0.936, respectively. Enhancement of visibility (S1), improvement of service quality (S2), sufficient tourism indicators (S3), increased willingness of young people to return to their hometowns (S4), industries feeding back into local development (S5), development of traditional culture (S6), strengthening community self-governance and management (S7), and sense of security in life (S8) were the issues addressed.
The KMO measure of environmental development is 0.912, its Bartlett approximate χ2 value is 4586.4, its df is 28, and its significance is p < 0.001, which makes it suitable for factor analysis. The scale can explain 61.153% of the total variance. After factor analysis, the remaining questions were found to be good and reliable. The total α value is 0.891, and the α values of the questions are 0.871–0.891, respectively. Clean community environment (En1), visitors do not litter (En2), ruins are well pre-served (En3), enhance people’s environmental literacy (En4), improve recreational trails (En5), increase facilities in development area (En6), increase parking space (En7), and environment affected by visitors (En8) were the issues addressed.
The KMO for ecological development is 0.702, the Bartlett approximate χ2 value is 670.88, the df is 3, and the significance is p < 0.001, making it suitable for factor analysis. The scale can explain 61.153% of the total variation. After factor analysis, issues that are good and reliable are retained. The total α value is 0.805, and the α values of each issue are 0.701–0.805, respectively. Water Pollution (Ec1), air Pollution (Ec2), and excessive forest land development (Ec3) were the issues discussed.
The welfare KMO is 0.819, the Bartlett approximate χ2 value is 1858.5, the df is 6, and the significance is p < 0.001, which makes it suitable for factor analysis. The scale can explain 61.153% of the total variance. After factor analysis, issues that are good and reliable were retained. The total α value is 0.900, and the α values of each issue are 0.838–0.900, respectively. Relaxation (W1), like my life (W2), enhancement of life participation (W3), and enhancement of social interaction (W4) were the issues discussed.
Nine people from various backgrounds were interviewed, including academics, local government officials, tourists, visitors, and residents. Semi-structured interviews were used to analyze questionnaire results and provide personal feedback. Finally, all the data gathered were categorized, sorted, integrated, compared, and discussed using the multivariate checking analysis method. Table 2 summarizes the respondents and interview questions and details the respondents’ backgrounds and questions. It shows respondents’ diverse professional backgrounds, ages, and identities. Notably, respondents from academia, village leadership, and the tourism industry offer diverse perspectives. Green consumption, consumer behavior, and water sustainability experts were included to demonstrate the importance of expertise in relevant fields for sustainability and environmental conservation discussions. Village chiefs and residents also emphasize the importance of local perspectives and community engagement in rural development and environmental management. It also shows respondents’ demographic diversity, being aged 18–62. This demographic variation allows for insights from people at different stages of life and professional trajectories, which is essential for complete understanding. Tourist responses add another dimension to the analysis, revealing their perceptions and behaviors in rural lake regions.
4. Results
The study examined the complex relationships between awareness of low-carbon leisure activities, factors related to development, and the happiness of young people in lakeside communities. Surprisingly, a strong comprehension of low-carbon activities showed notable connections with positive economic, social, and environmental advancements in these areas. This discovery poses a challenge to existing research frameworks, indicating that the impact of low-carbon awareness on community development is complex and dependent on specific circumstances. Nevertheless, the correlation between development factors and youth happiness was found to be more complex. Although overall development metrics did not directly correlate with increased youth well-being, certain components within each developmental category, such as the accessibility of recreational choices and decreased living expenses, showed positive connections.
4.1. Background Analysis
A statistical validation was conducted using 650 questionnaires and the SPSS 26.0 statistical software. Of the total, 321 individuals (49.38%) were residents, and 329 individuals (50.62%) were tourists. The population consisted of 259 males, accounting for 39.84% of the total, and 391 females, representing 60.16% of the total. There were 146 people under the age of 20 (22.5%), 213 people aged 21–30 (32.7%), 100 people aged 31–40 (15.4%), and 191 people aged 51 and above (29.4%). The data from this questionnaire reveal that the predominant demographic of participants consisted of young women and tourists.
4.2. Analysis of the Impact of Low-Carbon Leisure Awareness on the Economic, Social, Environmental, and Ecological Development of Lakeshore Rural Areas
Initially, we examined the impact of a strong understanding and consciousness of low-carbon leisure activities on lakeside communities’ economic, social, environmental, and ecological progress. Firstly, a Pearson’s performance correlation test was used. As shown in Table 3, we learned that economic, social, environmental, and ecological had a positive correlation (p < 0.01) with the awareness of low-carbon leisure, after which regression analyses could be carried out.
The correlation between low-carbon leisure awareness and economic, social, environmental, and ecological development is shown in Table 4. First, in the regression equation between low-carbon leisure awareness and economic development, F was 166.714 (p < 0.001), reaching a significant level, and the adjusted square was 0.249, indicating that the regression equation was valid. This means that leisure awareness can predict economic development and explain 24.9% of the variance. Regarding the explanatory power of economic development on low-carbon leisure awareness, the standardized regression coefficient of economic development was 0.569 (t = 12.912, p < 0.01), indicating that economic development affected low-carbon leisure awareness. When economic development increases by one unit, low-carbon leisure awareness increases by 0.569.
Next, when analyzing the regression equation between leisure consciousness and social development, the regression equation was valid, with a significant F of 120.116 (p < 0.001) and an adjusted squared value of 0.254. This means that leisure awareness can predict social development and explain 25.4% of the variance. Regarding the explanatory power of social development on low-carbon leisure awareness, the standardized regression of social development was found to be significant. The standardized regression coefficient Beta value of social development was 0.507 (t = 10.96, p < 0.01), indicating that social development affected low-carbon leisure awareness. When social development increases by one unit, low-carbon leisure awareness can increase by 0.507.
After analyzing the regression equation between leisure awareness and environmental development, the regression equation was found to be valid, with a significant F of 139.758 (p < 0.001) and an adjusted squared value of 0.284. This means that leisure awareness can predict environmental development and explain 28.4% of the variance. Regarding the explanatory power of environmental development on low-carbon leisure awareness, the standardized regression of environmental development was found to be significant. The standardized regression coefficient Beta value of environmental development was 0.535 (t = 10.96, p < 0.01), indicating that environmental development affected low-carbon leisure awareness. Low-carbon leisure awareness can increase by 0.535 when environmental development increases by one unit.
Finally, when analyzing the regression equation formed by leisure awareness and ecological development, F was 67.292 (p < 0.001), reaching a significant level, and the adjusted square was 0.160, which indicates that the regression equation was valid. This means that leisure awareness can predict ecological development and explains 16.0% of the variance. Regarding the explanatory power of ecological development on low-carbon leisure awareness, the standardized regression of ecological development was found to be significant. The standardized regression coefficient of the Beta value for ecological development was 0.403 (t = 8.203, p < 0.01), indicating that ecological development affected low-carbon leisure awareness. Low-carbon leisure awareness can increase by 0.403 when ecological development increases by one unit. Please refer to Table 5 for details of the above introduction.
The study revealed that a strong understanding and consciousness of low-carbon leisure activities have a noteworthy and favorable impact (p < 0.01) on the economic (0.620), social (0.518), environmental (0.499), and ecological (0.345) progress of lakeshore villages, as shown in Table 4. Among the low-carbon leisure perceptions, should taking public transportation has the highest impact on the economy (0.527), society (0.432), environment (0.413), and ecology (0.320), and low-carbon restaurants or leisure facilities have the lowest impact on the economy (0.455), society (0.362), environment (0.371), and “It is right not to litter on ecology” (0.216). Among the attitudes towards low-carbon leisure, reasonable price has the highest impact on the economy (0.567) and society (0.495), and eco-friendly has the highest impact on environment (0.443) and ecology (0.316), while reasonable price has the lowest impact on environment (0.398), ecology (0.258), and reasonable price has the lowest impact on environment (0.442) and ecology (0.371). Among the low-carbon leisure behaviors, willing to choose low-carbon transportation has the highest impact on the economy (0.479), environment (0.426), ecology (0.311), and society (0.385), while willing to bring their own environmentally friendly tableware has the highest impact on society (0.385). Willing to bring their own environmentally friendly tableware has the lowest impact on the economy (0.430), willing to choose low-carbon transportation has the lowest impact on society (0.370), and willing to buy packaged goods have the lowest impact on the environment (0.319) and ecology (0.245).
4.3. Analysis of the Impacts of Economic, Social, Environmental, and Ecological Development on Youth Happiness in Lakeshore Rural Areas
We analyzed the effects of economic, social, environmental, and ecological development on the sense of well-being of adolescents in rural lakeshore villages. First, Pearson’s poor performance correlation was used. As shown in Table 4 there is a positive correlation (p < 0.01) between economic, social, environmental, ecological, and well-being factors; after this, regression analysis could be continued.
The correlation between economic, social, environmental, and ecological development and well-being was analyzed, as shown in Table 4. First, in the regression equation between economic development and well-being, F was 70.229 (p < 0.001), reaching a significant level, and the adjusted square was 0.166, showing that the regression equation was valid. Economic development can predict well-being and explain 16.6% of the variance. Regarding the explanatory power of well-being in relation to economic development, the standardized regression coefficient Beta of well-being was 0.410 (t = 8.380, p < 0.01), indicating that well-being affects economic development. When well-being increases by one unit, economic development increases by 0.410.
Next, in the regression equation between social development and well-being, the regression equation was found to be valid, with a significant level of F of 85.085 (p < 0.001) and an adjusted square of 0.194. This means that social development can predict well-being and explains 19.4% of the variance. As for the explanatory power of well-being on social development, the standardized regression coefficients of well-being were significant. The standardized regression coefficient Beta value of well-being was 0.443 (t = 9.224, p < 0.01), indicating that well-being affects social development. When well-being increases by one unit, social development increases by 0.410.
Then, we found that the regression equation between environmental development and well-being had a significant F of 207.413 (p < 0.001) and an adjusted square of 0.372, indicating that the regression equation was valid. This means environmental development predicts well-being and explains 37.2% of the variance. As for the explanatory power of well-being on environmental development, the standardized regression coefficients of well-being were found to be significant. The standardized regression coefficient Beta value of well-being was 0.611 (t = 14.402, p < 0.01), meaning that well-being affects environmental development. When well-being increases by one unit, environmental development increases by 0.611.
Finally, in the regression equation between ecological development and well-being, the regression equation was found to be significant with an F of 159.019 (p < 0.001), and the adjusted square was 0.312, which indicates that the regression equation was valid. Ecological development can predict well-being and explain 31.2% of the variance. Regarding the explanatory power of well-being on ecological development, the standardized regression coefficients of well-being were found to be significant. The standardized regression coefficient Beta value of well-being was 0.560 (t = 12.610, p < 0.01), meaning that well-being affects ecological development. When well-being increases by one unit, ecological development increases by 0.560.
Next, the influence of economic, social, environmental, and ecological development on well-being was analyzed. The analysis revealed that improving public facilities (0.386) had the highest impact on economic issues, while increasing industrial construction (0.230) had the lowest impact. In the social section, strengthening community self-governance and management (0.387) had the highest impact and increasing the willingness of young people to return to their hometowns (0.311) had the lowest impact. In the environmental section, improve recreational trails (0.576) had the highest impact, while visitors do not litter (0.255) had the lowest impact. Air pollution (0.516) had the highest impact in the ecological section, and water pollution (0.409) had the lowest impact. This shows that Hypotheses 5–8 are not valid. Please refer to Table 6 for details of the above introduction.
5. Discussions
This part explores the many impacts of low-carbon leisure education on the cause. The study investigates how this educational approach affects four things: economic development, social development, environmental development, and ecological progress [65]. The results expose a positive link between low-carbon leisure education and economic, social, and ecological progress. Factors like using public transportation more often than other options and focusing on low-carbon goods helped boost the economy [66]. Meanwhile, being willing to use eco-friendly plates and utensils helps with social development. Lastly, deciding to use public transportation for more trips and taking a low-carbon option worked well in helping the environment and ecology flourish [67]. However, there is one aspect wherein there seems to be no correlation: youth well-being. Low-carbon leisure education had no impact on young people’s perception of their own well-being [68]. Researchers believe this is thanks to a lack of environmental awareness among youth, as well as weak willpower and a lack of money for them to participate fully in low-carbon activities [38,39]. Next up in the study is an analysis of alternative strategies they could implement to help young people in these communities feel happier about themselves.
5.1. Analysis of the Impact of Low-Carbon Leisure Education on the Economic, Social, Environmental and Ecological Development of Lakeshore Rural Areas
We believe that tourism development has the function of encouraging the public to engage in leisure activities and travel to other places for experience or consumption [5,12], and thus has the positive benefits of revitalizing rural economic development, beautifying the community environment, increasing the infrastructure, and increasing the government’s emphasis on tourism resources such as the local natural ecosystems, cultures, and monuments [14]. However, tourism development can also lead to a large amount of garbage being introduced into the local area due to the number of tourists and environmental quality, transportation, and other reasons, resulting in negative benefits such as air, water, and noise pollution [10] (this is also the opinion of the interviewees). Since the purpose of low-carbon leisure awareness is to encourage the public to have a sense of caring for the environment and to engage in green leisure activities, which in turn leads to green consumption awareness [9], it can achieve the potential benefits of sustainable development. It can help the public choose the means of transportation conducive to the sustainable development of the environment. It can satisfy the convenience of personal transportation to achieve the ends of leisure or consumption. Doing so can fulfill individual’s leisure and consumption needs, and simultaneously stimulate the local economy, increase local revenues, improve the public construction and community environment, and safeguard natural ecological development. This is also in line with the ultimate goal of the UN’s SDG 8 (decent work and economic growth).
Green restaurants can reduce the amount of travel waste by providing food and beverage consumption services, and the choice of friendly leisure facilities and the awareness of not littering can mitigate the problem of public facilities and environmental damage. However, there are differences in the public’s perception of environmental literacy and green consumption, and food waste, tableware, and cleaning pollutants are still generated while consuming food and beverages (this is also the opinion of the interviewees). All of these lead to unavoidable environmental damage during the consumption process, affecting rural areas’ overall economic, social, environmental, and ecological development. Therefore, the perception that one should take public transportation has a higher impact on economic, social, environmental, and ecological development. The main reasons for the low impact on economic and social development are the awareness of using low-carbon restaurants, the low impact on environmental and ecological development of recreational facilities, and the awareness of not littering.
Furthermore, the development of leisure and tourism attracts people from outside Hong Kong to engage in leisure or tourism consumption behaviors outside their residences. These benefits are conducive to promoting the upgrading of local industries and increasing the opportunities for the public to start businesses and find employment (views of interviewed scholars). In addition, when people engage in leisure activities, they are aware of the importance of low-carbon leisure and consciously avoid high-pollution consumption behavior, thus achieving the sustainable development of the ecology, environment, economy, and industry. These factors will promote the development of local industries towards low-carbon or green energy industries (views of interviewed scholars). As a result, existing industries in rural areas can be transformed into green industries, increasing demand for the development of low-carbon goods and activities and stimulating the development of industrial chains. These results can reduce the operating costs of the green industry, lower the selling price of goods, and increase the public’s willingness to consume. In addition, as people’s willingness to consume green goods increases, the industry’s willingness to choose to sell goods in green packaging styles also increases. This will continue to stimulate people’s green consumption behavior, reduce the amount of travel waste, reduce garbage and pollution, and aid in the sustainable development of the circular economy. This aligns with the UN’s SDG 12 (decent work and economic growth).
Low-carbon leisure awareness has the power to enhance economic, social, environmental, and ecological development. However, low-carbon leisure consumption still generates waste, and the possibility of waste disposal arises due to consumers’ environmental literacy differences (this is also the opinion of the interviewees). In addition, to achieve the goal of green consumption, the industry reduces packaging or refuses to provide services such as tableware and lodging supplies. These will reduce the convenience of consumption and increase the public’s or young people’s sense of disturbance during leisure or travel activities. As a result, this is the main reason why the attitude of keeping the price of low-carbon leisure consumption reasonable has a greater influence on economic and social development; the attitude of choosing and purchasing environmentally friendly packaging goods has a higher influence on environmental and ecological development; the attitude of keeping the price of low-carbon leisure consumption reasonable has a low impact on the environment and ecological development; and the attitude of low-carbon leisure makes me happy has a low influence on the economic and social development.
Finally, tourism development can encourage people to engage in leisure and tourism activities, thus attracting a large number of people to engage in leisure and consumption activities. However, overloading the number of tourists may cause negative impacts on rural transportation, housing, and the ecological environment, which may lead to a failure to achieve the goal of sustainable rural development. Therefore, if the public can uphold the awareness of low-carbon leisure and choose low-carbon transportation, this will contribute to young people’s participation in leisure and tourism. The benefits of tourism development can be maintained, and the benefits of pollution reduction, environmental protection, and sustainable rural and ecological development can also be achieved. These are also in line with the ultimate goal of the UN’s SDGs 13 and 15 (decent work and economic growth).
The public still demands food, housing, and entertainment while traveling or engaging in leisure activities, and they want a safe and convenient travel experience. Although bringing their own eco-friendly tableware can reduce pollution, it is not a convenient option for consumers (the voice of most interviewees). Low-carbon transportation is insufficient to meet the public’s mobility needs during leisure or travel. In addition, commodities from various industries need to be packaged to provide consumers with a high level of safety, hygiene, and product imagery. Therefore, to improve the efficiency of operation and management and reduce costs, entrepreneurs still maintain a certain level of packaging. They will continue to maintain a certain packaging design and provide temporary tableware or more convenient transportation to meet the needs of young consumers (views of interviewed scholars). As a result, the behavior of taking low-carbon transportation has a higher impact on economic, environmental, and ecological development; the behavior of bringing their eco-friendly tableware has a higher influence on social development; the behavior of bringing their eco-friendly tableware has a lower impact on economic growth; the behavior of taking low-carbon transportation has a lower impact on social development; and the behavior of purchasing eco-friendly packaged goods has a lower impact on environmental and ecological development.
5.2. Analysis of the Impacts of Economic, Social, Environmental, and Ecological Development of Lakeshore Rural Areas on Youth Well-Being
We believe that tourism development has the benefits of promoting economic growth, upgrading the quality of infrastructure, increasing local cultural exchanges, and maintaining community environment and ecological development [5,12]. However, public consumption behavior and personal environmental literacy can negatively affect economic, social, environmental, and ecological development. Therefore, maintaining the public’s awareness of low-carbon leisure and engaging in green leisure or tourism activities can support the public’s leisure benefits and tourism consumption behavior and achieve the function of stimulating economic development and increasing government revenues [9,10] (views of interviewed scholars). In particular, when local governments are financially strong, they have sufficient funds to maintain the quality of public facilities and increase infrastructure. These actions can provide a safe, hygienic, and healthy leisure environment for the public, and it is also beneficial for young people to engage in leisure and tourism activities. It is also helpful for young people to participate in leisure and tourism activities. This will help young people obtain sufficient benefits from sports, improve their access to personal leisure and tourism and their current physical and mental health, and improve the sense of pleasure. This is also in line with the ultimate goal of the UN’s SDG 3 (decent work and economic growth).
As tourism continues to grow, the number of tourists and the demand for tourism increase simultaneously. As a result, the existing industrial development and tourism public facilities cannot meet the needs of tourists (the opinion of most interviewees). These factors lead to a significant increase in industrial and infrastructure projects to meet the needs of tourism development and tourist spending. Although these factors can increase the variety of tourist facilities and meet the leisure and tourism consumption needs of young people, they will also result in a reduction in green space, the loss of ecological diversity, and a reduction in opportunities for young people to engage in low-carbon leisure or tourism activities, reducing their sense of pleasure. Therefore, in terms of economic development, the main reason is that improving public facilities has the greatest impact on the well-being of young people, while increasing industrial construction has the least impact.
Second, the development of leisure and tourism is conducive to local economic development and improves the quality of public infrastructure. Promoting low-carbon leisure literacy can also improve the public’s awareness of green consumption and encourage them to adopt environmentally friendly consumption behaviors voluntarily. These benefits can maintain the economic benefits of tourism development, reduce environmental and ecological pollution in the community, and create a safe, hygienic, and healthy living and leisure environment. These associated benefits are conducive to the public and young people continuing to reap the benefits of exercise, improving their physical and mental health, and feeling happy and comfortable. This aligns with the UN’s SDG 4 (decent work and economic growth).
With the booming development of tourism and industry, the quantity and quality of industry and infrastructure cannot meet the needs of the current situation, which has induced the government and enterprises to actively invest in and develop public construction and tourism facilities in the hope of satisfying the consumption needs of tourists and continuing to stimulate economic development. These conditions will result in a gradual decrease in green space due to development needs and the loss of ecological diversity (views of interviewed scholars). In addition, the current development of the natural ecological environment positively correlates with the development of green industries and products. The high development cost of green sectors has led green industry practitioners to be more conservative in their development strategies. Entrepreneurship and job opportunities are scarce and unstable, and young people are concerned about returning to the countryside to start a business and find employment. Therefore, these factors have led to a phenomenon whereby, in terms of social development, strengthening community autonomy and management has the greatest impact on the well-being of young people, while the increased willingness of young people to return to their hometowns has the least impact.
Furthermore, with the benefits of improving local government finances and promoting tourism development, local governments or entrepreneurs hope to maintain the economic dividends generated by promoting tourism development. These factors will encourage relevant institutions or entrepreneurs to increase their willingness to develop leisure and tourism activities and improve basic public infrastructure. Coupled with the increased awareness of low-carbon leisure, the environmental damage caused by tourism development can be reduced, and ecological diversity can be maintained. This can be achieved by building leisure trails to allow the public or young people to appreciate the charm of the natural environment and ecology, increasing the willingness to relax and gain a sense of pleasure. These also meet the objectives of UN SDG 4 (decent work and economic growth).
The development of the rural tourism industry has led to a large number of tourists, with crowds becoming more frequent. Problems such as traffic congestion, exhaust and oil pollution from cars and motorcycles, air, water, and noise pollution, tourist littering, and reductions in ecological habitats frequently arise due to tourism development. Green leisure spaces have also gradually disappeared, resulting in a shrinking environment for low-carbon leisure activities. These shortcomings prevent young people from continuing to reap the benefits of low-carbon leisure sports and improve their physical and mental health. Therefore, from an environmental development perspective, improving recreational trails has the greatest impact on the well-being of young people. In contrast, the effect of tourists littering is the main cause of the phenomenon.
Tourism development can harm the environment and damage the ecosystem. However, these negative issues can be reduced by promoting low-carbon leisure awareness to minimize the damage caused by promoting tourism development and reducing littering. Moreover, when the government realizes the benefits of improving the financial situation through tourism development, it is expected to continue promoting the tourism industry and increase the emphasis on developing tourism facilities and maintaining the quality of tourism public facilities. It is hoped that by preserving the quality of the river water and the surrounding environment, creating ecological diversity, and continuing to attract low-carbon leisure and tourism development, the sustainable development of the rural economy can be achieved. These actions will help reduce human damage to rivers, maintain river water quality, and provide young people with a low-carbon, diverse leisure environment and a sense of joy. These actions also align with the UN’s SDGs 13 and 15 (decent work and economic growth).
The countryside is facing a gradual increase in tourist crowds. The demand for tourism industry development and tourism consumption behavior will increase the frequency of transportation in response to infrastructure development or tourism demand. Frequent transportation operations may generate a large amount of oil pollution, and construction site development may cause pollution, such as dust and noise. These problems may also affect young people’s willingness to engage in low-carbon leisure sports, reduce leisure benefits, and endanger their physical and mental health. Therefore, these phenomena have led to a phenomenon whereby, at the level of ecological development, air pollution has the greatest impact on the well-being of young people, while water pollution has the least.
6. Conclusions
We have found that low-carbon leisure awareness can indeed maintain the current development of rural areas, scenic spots, and the ecological environment, create a green industrial chain, maintain ecological diversity, and sustain the positive economic development benefits generated by tourism development, which is in line with the UN’s SDGs. However, there is a difference in awareness between individual environmental literacy and the degree to which it is matched by green consumption. Waste and pollution are unavoidable during the process of tourism consumption. Noise and dust pollution are generated during infrastructure construction or facility quality maintenance, and exhaust emissions are also produced by construction vehicles or tourist transport. The packaging design of green products may not be able to meet the consumption needs of tourists, reducing consumption convenience. Tourism development needs may result in the loss of green space. These conditions are not conducive to young people’s continued participation in low-carbon leisure activities, hindering benefits and factors that improve physical and mental health and well-being. Therefore, we propose the following recommendations based on the above main factors.
6.1. Recommendations for Governments
The government should maintain its policy of promoting low-carbon leisure awareness education and formulate policies that simultaneously achieve the benefits of tourism economic development and low-carbon consumption. A low-carbon leisure awareness education policy can increase people’s awareness of and compliance with green consumption, effectively reduce the amount of personal travel waste generated by the public when participating in tourism activities, reduce littering, and protect the community and ecological environment. The government should advocate low-carbon consumption, maintain the benefits of tourism economic development, and be conducive to establishing rural eco-tourism industries and activity themes, developing low-carbon leisure and tourism appeal. These actions can achieve the dual benefits of maintaining the ecology and living environment while also increasing the profits of the government and the people.
6.2. Recommendations for Businesses and the Public
Entrepreneurs should launch low-carbon leisure activities to increase consumer choices in response to the current state of the natural environment and ecological development. They must also design product packaging that meets consumer needs to increase consumer convenience. People should increase their environmental literacy and civic-mindedness, implement friendly consumption behaviors, and reduce man-made waste pollution. These actions can help promote low-carbon leisure and sustainable economic development.
6.3. Limitations of This Study and Suggestions for Future Research
This study only discusses the impact of low-carbon leisure awareness on rural economic development and youth well-being. Due to time, funding, and human resources limitations, the discussion only focuses on a single country and region, and the number of samples collected. Therefore, we suggest that future researchers focus on the differences in the contexts of different countries, regions, natural environments, and types of sports. We also recommend increasing the number of questionnaires or using different sampling and research methods to enrich the diversity of this research field.
Conceptualization, Q.Z. and Y.-Z.Z.; methodology, H.-H.L.; software, H.-H.L.; validation, Q.Z., Y.-Z.Z. and H.-H.L.; formal analysis, Q.Z.; investigation, Y.-Z.Z. and I.-E.T.; resources, X.-Q.Y.; data curation, R.P.; writing—original draft preparation, Y.-H.T.; writing—review and editing, H.-H.L.; visualization, Q.Z.; supervision, Y.-Z.Z.; project administration, Y.-H.T.; funding acquisition, Q.Z. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
This survey was supported and authorized by the Academic Committee of Jiaying University (No. 131/322E1860). This survey was in compliance with the norms and requirements of the Declaration of Helsinki.
Written informed consent has been obtained from the patient(s) to publish this paper.
The original contributions presented in this study are included in the article. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.
The authors declare no conflict 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.
Analysis of questionnaires.
| Construct | KMO (χ2/DF) | Issues | α | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Low-carbon leisure awareness | Low-Carbon Leisure Awareness | 0.914 (3113.569/66) | It is right not to litter (LC1), should choose low-carbon restaurants or leisure facilities (LC2), should take public transportation (LC3), should buy low-packaging goods (LC4) | 0.932–0.934 |
| Low-Carbon Leisure Attitude | Eco-friendly (LA1), low-carbon products are easy to buy (LA2), reasonable price (LA3), low-carbon leisure is enjoyable (LA4), low-carbon leisure makes you happy (LA5) | 0.931–0.934 | ||
| Low-Carbon Leisure Behavior | Willing to bring their own environmentally friendly tableware (LB1), willing to buy packaged goods (LB2), willing to choose low-carbon transportation (LB3) | 0.932–0.933 | ||
| Economy Impact Cognition | 0.926 (5411.9/45) ** | Increase employment opportunities (E1), increase interpretation facilities (E2), increase industrial construction (E3), increase leisure and entertainment opportunities (E4), convenience in leisure or tourism spending (E5), low cost of living and consumption (E6), improve public facilities (E7), improve medical standards (E8), smooth channels for community opinion exchange (E9), develop creative commodities (E10) | 0.937–0.945 | |
| Social Impact Cognition | 0.912 (4586.4/28) ** | Enhancement of visibility (S1), improvement of service quality (S2), sufficient tourism indicators (S3), increased willingness of young people to return to their hometowns (S4), industries feeding back into local development (S5), development of traditional culture (S6), strengthening community self-governance and management (S7), and sense of security in life (S8) | 0.934–0.936 | |
| Environmental Impact Cognition | 0.868 (3259.03/28) ** | Clean community environment(En1), visitors do not litter (En2), ruins are well preserved (En3), enhance people’s environmental literacy (En4), improve recreational trails (En5), increase facilities in development area (En6), increase parking spaces (En7), environment affected by visitors (En8) | 0.871–0.891 | |
| Ecological Impact Cognition | 0.702 (670.88/3) ** | Water pollution (Ec1), air pollution (Ec2), excessive forest land development (Ec3) | 0.701–0.805 | |
| Well-being | 0.819 (1858.5/6) ** | Relaxation (W1), like my life (W2), enhancement of life participation (W3), enhancement of social interaction (W4) | 0.838–0.900 | |
** p < 0.001.
Respondents’ background and interview questions.
| Professional Background or Age | Identity | Professional Background and Qualifications | Identity | Professional Background and Qualifications | Identity |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Green Consumption, Consumer Behavior | Professor | Decision-making and Administration | Village Chief | Tourism | Industry |
| Water Sustainability | Professor | 18 years old | Tourists | 22 years old | Tourists |
| 62 years old | Residents | 25 years old | Residents | 28 years old | Residents |
| Construct | Issues | ||||
| Low-carbon leisure awareness |
| ||||
| Economy |
| ||||
| Social |
| ||||
| Environmental |
| ||||
| Ecological |
| ||||
| Well-being |
| ||||
Correlation of low-carbon leisure awareness with economic, social, environmental, and ecological development of lakeshore rural areas.
| Facet (r2) | Low Carbon Leisure Awareness | LC1 | LC2 | LC3 | LC4 | LA1 | LA2 | LA3 | LA4 | LA5 | LB1 | LB2 | LB3 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Economy | 0.620 ** | 0.466 ** | 0.455 ** | 0.527 ** | 0.484 ** | 0.528 ** | 0.562 ** | 0.567 ** | 0.443 ** | 0.442 ** | 0.430 ** | 0.461 ** | 0.479 ** |
| Society | 0.518 ** | 0.370 ** | 0.362 ** | 0.432 ** | 0.392 ** | 0.442 ** | 0.478 ** | 0.495 ** | 0.405 ** | 0.371 ** | 0.385 ** | 0.378 ** | 0.370 ** |
| Environment | 0.499 ** | 0.378 ** | 0.371 ** | 0.413 ** | 0.395 ** | 0.443 ** | 0.435 ** | 0.398 ** | 0.397 ** | 0.356 ** | 0.366 ** | 0.319 ** | 0.426 ** |
| Ecology | 0.345 ** | 0.216 ** | 0.260 ** | 0.320 ** | 0.251 ** | 0.316 ** | 0.271 ** | 0.258 ** | 0.263 ** | 0.269 ** | 0.266 ** | 0.245 ** | 0.311 ** |
** p < 0.01.
Regression analysis of low-carbon leisure awareness and economic, social, environmental and ecological development.
| Dependent Variable | Independent Variable | Standardized Regression Coefficient β | Standardized Regression Coefficient β | t-Value | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Well-being | Economy | 0.518 | 6.295 | 0.000 ** | |
| 0.580 | 0.410 | 8.380 | 0.000 ** | ||
| R2 = 0.166, F = 70.229, p = 0.01 ** | |||||
| Society | 0.535 | 6.231 | 0.000 ** | ||
| 0.593 | 0.443 | 9.224 | 0.000 ** | ||
| R2 = 0.194, F = 85.085, p = 0.01 ** | |||||
| Environment | 0.882 | 0.366 | 0.000 ** | ||
| 0.943 | 0.611 | 14.402 | 0.000 ** | ||
| R2 = 0.372, F = 207.413, p = 0.01 ** | |||||
| Ecology | 0.685 | 3.900 | 0.000 ** | ||
| 0.739 | 0.560 | 12.610 | 0.000 ** | ||
| R2 = 0.312, F = 159.019, p = 0.01 ** | |||||
** p < 0.01.
Regression analysis of low-carbon leisure awareness and economic, social, environmental and ecological development.
| Dependent Variable | Independent Variable | Standardized Regression Coefficient β | Standardized Regression Coefficient β | t-Value | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Low-carbon Leisure Awareness | Economy | 0.580 | 9.273 | 0.000 ** | |
| 0.625 | 0.569 | 12.912 | 0.000 ** | ||
| R2 = 0.322, F = 166.714, p = 0.01 ** | |||||
| Society | 0.493 | 10.88 | 0.000 ** | ||
| 0.538 | 0.507 | 10.96 | 0.000 ** | ||
| R2 = 0.257, F = 120.116, p = 0.01 ** | |||||
| Environment | 0.623 | 6.921 | 0.000 ** | ||
| 0.676 | 0.535 | 11.822 | 0.000 ** | ||
| R2 = 0.284, F = 139.758, p = 0.01 ** | |||||
| Ecology | 0.397 | 11.983 | 0.000 ** | ||
| 0.445 | 0.403 | 8.203 | 0.000 ** | ||
** p < 0.01.
Correlation between economic, leisure, environmental, and ecological development and youth happiness in the Hubin Rural Area.
| Facet | Economy | E1 | E2 | E3 | E4 | E5 | E6 | E7 | E8 | E9 | E10 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Well-being | 0.410 ** | 0.348 ** | 0.281 ** | 0.230 ** | 0.277 ** | 0.344 ** | 0.286 ** | 0.386 ** | 0.294 ** | 0.260 ** | 0.359 ** |
| Society | S1 | S2 | S3 | S4 | S5 | S6 | S7 | S8 | |||
| 0.443 ** | 0.344 ** | 0.376 ** | 0.377 ** | 0.311 ** | 0.367 ** | 0.335 ** | 0.387 ** | 0.368 ** | |||
| Environment | En1 | En2 | En3 | En4 | En5 | En6 | En7 | En8 | |||
| 0.611 ** | 0.347 ** | 0.255 ** | 0.346 ** | 0.489 ** | 0.576 ** | 0.521 ** | 0.464 ** | 0.488 ** | |||
| Ecology | Ec1 | Ec2 | Ec3 | ||||||||
| 0.560 ** | 0.409 ** | 0.516 ** | 0.474 ** |
** p < 0.01.
References
1. Teshome, E.; Aberaw, G.; Tesgera, D.; Abebe, F. The untold tourism potentials of Bela Mountain, for community-based-ecotourism development, ecosystem conservation and livelihood improvement, Waghimera Zone, Ethiopia. Environ. Dev. Sustain.; 2023; 25, pp. 3923-3944. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10668-022-02223-8]
2. Pyky, R.; Neuvonen, M.; Kangas, K.; Ojala, A.; Lanki, T.; Borodulin, K.; Tyrväinen, L. Individual and environmental factors associated with green exercise in urban and suburban areas. Health Place; 2019; 55, pp. 20-28. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2018.11.001] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30459052]
3. Huddart, D.; Stott, T.; Huddart, D.; Stott, T. Adventure Tourism in Alaska. Adventure Tourism: Environmental Impacts and Management; Palgrave Macmillan: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 183-240.
4. Groulx, M.; Boluk, K.; Lemieux, C.J.; Dawson, J. Place stewardship among last chance tourists. Ann. Tour. Res.; 2019; 75, pp. 202-212. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2019.01.008]
5. Shetty, N.K.; Kamath, S.; Patil, A.A.; Tejaswi, S.I.; Bhat, M.; Naik, S.R.; Samrajya, S. Creating Sustainable Experiential Tourism for Showcasing Tulunadu’s Ecological Treasures. J. Inform. Educ. Res.; 2024; 4, pp. 661-685. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.52783/jier.v4i1.618]
6. Samal, R.; Dash, M. Eco-tourism, biodiversity conservation and livelihoods: Understanding the convergence and divergence. Int. J. Geoheritage Parks; 2023; 11, pp. 1-20. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgeop.2022.11.001]
7. Perić, M.; Vitezić, V.; Badurina, J.Đ. Business models for active outdoor sport event tourism experiences. Tour. Manag. Perspect.; 2019; 32, 100561. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2019.100561]
8. Day, J.; Chin, N.; Sydnor, S.; Widhalm, M.; Shah, K.U.; Dorworth, L. Implications of climate change for tourism and outdoor recreation: An Indiana, USA, case study. Clim. Change; 2021; 169, 29. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10584-021-03284-w]
9. Llavero-Valero, M.; San Martín, J.E.; Martínez-González, M.A.; Alvarez-Mon, M.A.; Alvarez-Alvarez, I.; Martínez-González, J.; Bes-Rastrollo, M. Promoting exercise, reducing sedentarism or both for diabetes prevention: The “Seguimiento Universidad De Navarra” (SUN) cohort. Nutr. Metab. Cardiovasc. Dis.; 2021; 31, pp. 411-419. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.numecd.2020.09.027]
10. Lin, H.H.; Ling, Y.; Chen, I.S.; Wu, P.Y.; Hsu, I.C.; Hsu, C.H.; Zhang, S.F. Can low-carbon tourism awareness promote rural and ecological development, create safe leisure spaces, and increase public happiness? A discussion from the perspective of different stakeholders. Water; 2022; 14, 3557. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/w14213557]
11. Awang, K.W.; Zulkefli, N.S. Tourism Planning: Forces of Changes, Processes and Relationship; iPRO Publication: Universiti Malaysia Kelantan (UMK) Bachok, Malaysia, 2023.
12. Shih, H.Y.; Yao, Y.S. Indicators of low-carbon management in the leisure industry: Research using examples in Taiwan and China. Sustainability; 2020; 12, 4326. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su12104326]
13. Zhang, J.; Zhang, Y. Low-carbon tourism system in an urban destination. Curr. Issues Tour.; 2020; 23, pp. 1688-1704. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2019.1641473]
14. Wang, L.; Yotsumoto, Y. Conflict in tourism development in rural China. Tour. Manag.; 2019; 70, pp. 188-200. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2018.08.012]
15. Muhammed, Z.; Abubakar, I.R. Improving the Quality of Life of Urban Communities in Developing Countries. Responsible Consumption and Production; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2022; pp. 357-370. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95726-5_25]
16. United Nations. THE 17 SDGs. 2023; Available online: https://sdgs.un.org/goals (accessed on 20 October 2024).
17. Tambovceva, T.; Atstaja, D.; Tereshina, M.; Uvarova, I.; Livina, A. Sustainability challenges and drivers of cross-border greenway tourism in rural areas. Sustainability; 2020; 12, 5927. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su12155927]
18. Hena, S.; Khan, S.U.; Rehman, A.; Sahar, S.; Khalil, I.U.; Luan, J. Valuing and significance of eco-tourism parks across eastern arid regions of Pakistan. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res.; 2021; 28, pp. 5900-5913. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-10988-6]
19. Choi, S.M.; Sum, K.W.R.; Leung, F.L.E.; Wallhead, T.; Morgan, K.; Milton, D.; Ha, S.C.A.; Sit, H.P.C. Effect of sport education on students’ perceived physical literacy, motivation, and physical activity levels in university required physical education: A cluster-randomized trial. High. Educ.; 2021; 81, pp. 1137-1155. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10734-020-00603-5]
20. Tate, C.; Wang, R.; Akaraci, S.; Burns, C.; Garcia, L.; Clarke, M.; Hunter, R. The contribution of urban green and blue spaces to the United Nation’s sustainable development goals: An evidence gap map. Cities; 2024; 145, 104706. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2023.104706]
21. Worlanyo, A.S.; Jiangfeng, L. Evaluating the environmental and economic impact of mining for post-mined land restoration and land-use: A review. J. Environ. Manag.; 2021; 279, 111623. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.111623]
22. Backes, E.P.; Bonnie, R.J. The Promise of Adolescence: Realizing Opportunity for All Youth; National Academies Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2019.
23. Mihalache, M.; Mihalache, O.R. How workplace support for the COVID-19 pandemic and personality traits affect changes in employees’ affective commitment to the organization and job-related well-being. Hum. Resour. Manag.; 2022; 61, pp. 295-314. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hrm.22082] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34518710]
24. Das, K.V.; Jones-Harrell, C.; Fan, Y.; Ramaswami, A.; Orlove, B.; Botchwey, N. Understanding subjective well-being: Perspectives from psychology and public health. Public Health Rev.; 2020; 41, 25. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40985-020-00142-5]
25. Juna, M.A.; Anshari, M.; Ahmad, N.; Hamdan, M. Working from home, COVID-19 and multi-dimensional model of well-being theory. Int. J. Work. Organ. Emot.; 2022; 13, pp. 230-259. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJWOE.2022.126957]
26. Ryff, C.D. Entrepreneurship and eudaimonic well-being: Five venues for new science. J. Bus. Ventur.; 2019; 34, pp. 646-663. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2018.09.003] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31105380]
27. Rantala, O.; Puhakka, R. Engaging with nature: Nature affords well-being for families and young people in Finland. Child. Geogr.; 2020; 18, pp. 490-503. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14733285.2019.1685076]
28. Zhao, H.; Zhou, Q.; He, P.; Jiang, C. How and when does socially responsible HRM affect employees’ organizational citizenship behaviors toward the environment?. J. Bus. Ethics; 2021; 169, pp. 371-385. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04285-7]
29. Khalil, E.L. Well-being and happiness. J. Value Inq.; 2019; 53, pp. 627-652. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10790-018-9678-1]
30. Anand, P.; Bakhshi, A.; Gupta, R.; Bali, M. Gratitude and quality of life among adolescents: The mediating role of mindfulness. Trends Psychol.; 2021; 29, pp. 706-718. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s43076-021-00077-z]
31. Winter, P.L.; Selin, S.; Cerveny, L.; Bricker, K. Outdoor recreation, nature-based tourism, and sustainability. Sustainability; 2019; 12, 81. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su12010081]
32. Malchrowicz-Mośko, E.; Botiková, Z.; Poczta, J. Because we don’t want to run in smog: Problems with the sustainable management of sport event tourism in protected areas (a case study of National Parks in Poland and Slovakia). Sustainability; 2019; 11, 325. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su11020325]
33. Jones, R.; Goodwin-Hawkins, B.; Woods, M. From territorial cohesion to regional spatial justice: The well-being of future generations act in Wales. Int. J. Urban Reg. Res.; 2020; 44, pp. 894-912. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1468-2427.12909]
34. Obeng, J.K.; Kangas, K.; Stamm, I.; Tolvanen, A. Promoting Sustainable Well-Being Through Nature-Based Interventions for Young People in Precarious Situations: Implications for Social work. A Systematic Review. J. Happiness Stud.; 2023; 24, pp. 2881-2911. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10902-023-00683-x]
35. Hammoudi Halat, D.; Soltani, A.; Dalli, R.; Alsarraj, L.; Malki, A. Understanding and fostering mental health and well-being among university faculty: A narrative review. J. Clin. Med.; 2023; 12, 4425. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm12134425]
36. Huang, Y.; Gao, L. Influence mechanism of commuter’s low-carbon literacy on the intention of mode choice: A case study in Shanghai, China. Int. J. Sustain. Transp.; 2022; 16, pp. 1131-1143. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15568318.2021.1975325]
37. Li, H.; Qu, P.; Luo, F. Impact of tourists’ perceived value and sense of social responsibility on the low-carbon consumption behavior intention: A case study of Zhangjiajie National Forest Park. Forests; 2022; 13, 1594. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/f13101594]
38. Chen, W.; Li, J. Who are the low-carbon activists? Analysis of the influence mechanism and group characteristics of low-carbon behavior in Tianjin, China. Sci. Total Environ.; 2019; 683, pp. 729-736. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.05.307] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31150893]
39. Wang, T.; Shen, B.; Springer, C.H.; Hou, J. What prevents us from taking low-carbon actions? A comprehensive review of influencing factors affecting low-carbon behaviors. Energy Res. Soc. Sci.; 2021; 71, 101844. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2020.101844]
40. Hambarde, A.; Shinde, K. Tourism Urbanisation in Metropolitan Fringe: Insights from the Tourist City of Lavasa in Pune, India. Sustainability; 2024; 16, 616. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su16020616]
41. Cisneros-Montemayor, A.M.; Moreno-Báez, M.; Voyer, M.; Allison, E.H.; Cheung, W.W.; Hessing-Lewis, M.; Oyinlola, M.A.; Singh, G.G.; Swartz, W.; Ota, Y. Social equity and benefits as the nexus of a transformative Blue Economy: A sectoral review of implications. Mar. Policy; 2019; 109, 103702. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2019.103702]
42. Li, Y.; Nassani, A.A.; Al-Aiban, K.M.; Rahman, S.U.; Naseem, I.; Zaman, K. Beyond the numbers: Unveiling the environmental impacts of international tourism and the role of renewable energy transition. Curr. Issues Tour.; 2024; 27, pp. 3908-3923. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2024.2313057]
43. Smith, W. The leadership role of teachers and environment club coordinators in promoting ecocentrism in secondary schools: Teachers as exemplars of environmental education. Aust. J. Environ. Educ.; 2020; 36, pp. 63-80. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/aee.2020.8]
44. Everard, M.; Gupta, N.; Scott, C.A.; Tiwari, P.C.; Joshi, B.; Kataria, G.; Kumar, S. Assessing livelihood-ecosystem interdependencies and natural resource governance in Indian villages in the Middle Himalayas. Reg. Environ. Change; 2019; 19, pp. 165-177. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10113-018-1391-x]
45. Baloch, Q.B.; Shah, S.N.; Iqbal, N.; Sheeraz, M.; Asadullah, M.; Mahar, S.; Khan, A.U. Impact of tourism development upon environmental sustainability: A suggested framework for sustainable eco-tourism. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res.; 2023; 30, pp. 5917-5930. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-22496-w]
46. Gabriel-Campos, E.; Werner-Masters, K.; Cordova-Buiza, F.; Paucar-Caceres, A. Community eco-tourism in rural Peru: Resilience and adaptive capacities to the Covid-19 pandemic and climate change. J. Hosp. Tour. Manag.; 2021; 48, pp. 416-427. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2021.07.016]
47. Bhaktikul, K.; Aroonsrimorakot, S.; Laiphrakpam, M.; Paisantanakij, W. Toward a low-carbon tourism for sustainable development: A study based on a royal project for highland community development in Chiang Rai, Thailand. Environ. Dev. Sustain.; 2021; 23, pp. 10743-10762. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10668-020-01083-4]
48. Zhan, P.; Shen, L.; He, H. Low-carbon behavior between urban and rural residents in China: An online survey study. Sustain. Prod. Consum.; 2024; 46, pp. 690-702. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2024.03.022]
49. Della Spina, L.; Giorno, C. Cultural landscapes: A multi-stakeholder methodological approach to support widespread and shared tourism development strategies. Sustainability; 2021; 13, 7175. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su13137175]
50. Mejjad, N.; Rossi, A.; Pavel, A.B. The coastal tourism industry in the Mediterranean: A critical review of the socio-economic and environmental pressures & impacts. Tour. Manag. Perspect.; 2022; 44, 101007.
51. Thorn, J.P.; Aleu, R.B.; Wijesinghe, A.; Mdongwe, M.; Marchant, R.A.; Shackleton, S. Mainstreaming nature-based solutions for climate resilient infrastructure in peri-urban sub-Saharan Africa. Landsc. Urban Plan.; 2021; 216, 104235. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2021.104235]
52. Akpan, I.J.; Udoh, E.A.P.; Adebisi, B. Small business awareness, adoption of state-of-the-art technologies in emerging and developing markets, and lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic. J. Small Bus. Entrep.; 2022; 34, pp. 123-140. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08276331.2020.1820185]
53. Bae, S.Y.; Chang, P.J. The effect of coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) risk perception on behavioural intention towards ‘untact’ tourism in South Korea during the first wave of the pandemic (March 2020). Curr. Issues Tour.; 2021; 24, pp. 1017-1035. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2020.1798895]
54. Mamirkulova, G.; Mi, J.; Abbas, J.; Mahmood, S.; Mubeen, R.; Ziapour, A. New Silk Road infrastructure opportunities in developing tourism environment for residents better quality of life. Glob. Ecol. Conserv.; 2020; 24, e01194. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2020.e01194]
55. Buhalis, D.; Leung, X.Y.; Fan, D.; Darcy, S.; Chen, G.; Xu, F.; Tan, G.W.-H.; Nunkoo, R.; Farmaki, A. Tourism 2030 and the contribution to the sustainable development goals: The tourism review viewpoint. Tour. Rev.; 2023; 78, pp. 293-313. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/TR-04-2023-620]
56. Ashdown, B.K.; Dixe, A.; Talmage, C.A. The potentially damaging effects of developmental aid and voluntourism on cultural capital and well-being. Int. J. Community Well-Being; 2021; 4, pp. 113-131. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s42413-020-00079-2]
57. Sulich, A.; Rutkowska, M. Green jobs, definitional issues, and the employment of young people: An analysis of three European Union countries. J. Environ. Manag.; 2020; 262, 110314. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.110314] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32250797]
58. Dai, Y.Y.; Shie, A.J.; Chu, J.H.; Wu, Y.C.J. Low-carbon travel motivation and constraint: Scales development and validation. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health; 2022; 19, 5123. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19095123] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35564516]
59. Farmaki, A.; Christou, P.; Saveriades, A.; Spanou-Tripinioti, E. Perceptions of Pafos as European Capital of Culture: Tourism stakeholder and resident perspectives. Int. J. Tour. Res.; 2019; 1, pp. 234-244. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jtr.2257]
60. Hellström, L.; Beckman, L. Life challenges and barriers to help seeking: Adolescents’ and young adults’ voices of mental health. confirmInt. J. Environ. Res. Public Health; 2021; 18, 13101. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182413101]
61. Moayerian, N.; McGehee, N.G.; Stephenson, M.O., Jr. Community cultural development: Exploring the connections between collective art making, capacity building and sustainable community-based tourism. Ann. Tour. Res.; 2022; 93, 103355. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2022.103355]
62. Qiu, B.X. Taijiang National Park 103th Annual Visitor Service Satisfaction Survey Plan; Taijian National Park Administration: Tainan City, Taiwan, 2014.
63. Lin, H.H.; Shen, C.C.; Ling, Y.; Lin, C.Y. Effect of traditional Chinese medicine massage on physical and mental health of middle-aged and elderly women. Biotechnol. Genet. Eng. Rev.; 2023; 40, pp. 638-663. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02648725.2023.2186495]
64. Yang, L.; Zheng, Y.Z.; Lin, H.H.; Chen, I.S.; Chen, K.Y.; Li, Q.Y.; Tsai, I.E. Under the Risk of COVID-19 Epidemic: A Study on the Influence of Life Attitudes, Leisure Sports Values, and Workplace Risk Perceptions on Urban Development and Public Well-Being. Sustainability; 2023; 15, 7740. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su15107740]
65. Zhao, X.; Mahendru, M.; Ma, X.; Rao, A.; Shang, Y. Impacts of environmental regulations on green economic growth in China: New guidelines regarding renewable energy and energy efficiency. Renew. Energy; 2022; 187, pp. 728-742. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2022.01.076]
66. Rong, P.; Kwan, M.P.; Qin, Y.; Zheng, Z. A review of research on low-carbon school trips and their implications for human-environment relationship. J. Transp. Geogr.; 2022; 99, 103306. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2022.103306]
67. He, J.; Li, Z.; Zhang, X.; Wang, H.; Dong, W.; Chang, S.; Ou, X.; Guo, S.; Tian, Z.; Gu, A. et al. Comprehensive report on China’s long-term low-carbon development strategies and pathways. Chin. J. Popul. Resour. Environ.; 2020; 18, pp. 263-295. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cjpre.2021.04.004]
68. Druckman, A.; Gatersleben, B. A time-use approach: High subjective well-being, low carbon leisure. J. Public Ment. Health; 2019; 18, pp. 85-93. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JPMH-04-2018-0024]
© 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
; Xue-Qi, Yan 4 ; Peng, Rui 4 ; I-En Tsai 5 ; Yi-Han, Tseng 6 1 College of Physical Education, Beihua University, Jilin 132000, China;
2 Department of Healthcare Industry Technology Development and Management, National Chin-Yi University of Technology, Taichung 41170, Taiwan;
3 Department of Healthcare Industry Technology Development and Management, National Chin-Yi University of Technology, Taichung 41170, Taiwan;
4 School of Physical Education, Jiaying University, Meizhou 514015, China;
5 Department of Physical Education and Sport Sciences, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei 106209, Taiwan;
6 Physical Education Center, Kaohsiung Medical University, No. 100, Shih-Chuan 1st Road, Sanmin Dist., Kaohsiung City 807378, Taiwan