Interactions and relationships between personal factors in pro-environmental golf tourist behaviour: a gender analysis

sustainability Article Interactions and Relationships between Personal Factors in Pro-Environmental Golf Tourist Behaviour: A Gender Analysis Jesús Manuel López-Bonilla *, María del Carmen Reyes-Rodríguez and Luis Miguel López-Bonilla Department of Business Administration and Marketing, Universidad de Sevilla, 41004 Sevilla, Spain; [email protected] (M.d.C.R.-R.); [email protected] (L.M.L.-B.) *Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +34-954-554-438 Received: 19 November 2019; Accepted: 27 December 2019; Published: 31 December 2019   Abstract: There is a very clear link between tourism and sustainability due to the importance and consequences of the tourism sector in the world economy. Behavioural studies are among the major topics of sustainable tourism research. There are several factors that influence our sustainable behaviour at home and in vacation settings. In general, the main objective of this paper is to examine the personal factors in pro-environmental tourist behaviour from a gender perspective. This study is based on a sample of 347 golf tourists from 16 European countries. The results corroborated the relationships between ecological habits, personal capabilities and environmental attitudes. However, interactions between personal factors were more limited. It was shown that only the interaction between personal capabilities and externally-oriented habits have an influence on environmental attitudes. Also, some gender differences were found. Keywords: environmental attitudes; gender; golf tourism; habits; personal capabilities 1. Introduction The relationship between tourism and sustainability is a very important issue due to the role of tourism and travel in the global economy [ 1 ]. Although sustainable tourism has been an important topic for more than 30 years, a literature review suggested that the proportion of papers that cover sustainable tourism out of all tourism papers had not increased since 2010, and was possibly even in decline [ 2 ]. Recently, several studies have synthesised the most popular research themes on sustainability and tourism/hospitality [ 1 – 4 ]. In this vein, Qian, Shen, and Law [ 4 ] identified six major themes of sustainable tourism research: climate change, policy instruments, volunteer tourism, poverty reduction, indigenous tourism, and behavioural studies. Research under the latter topic focuses on examining the environmentally-sustainable behaviour that tourists exhibit while travelling. Several models have been proposed to fulfil this goal [5–13]. In general, people exhibit different behaviours in places other than their place of residence. It is logical to think that tourists behave differently in the places they visit than they do at home. In this sense, the concepts of regional identity or place attachment can play an important role in environmental behaviour [ 14 , 15 ]. Tourists are different from normal local residents because of their temporary status as visitors to a destination [ 6 ]. Hence, Kollmuss and Agyeman [ 16 ] indicated that the relationship between environmental attitudes and environmentally-friendly behaviour is expected to be weaker when the cost of not acting pro-environmentally is relatively low. Also, Dolnicar [ 17 ] found that pro-environmental behaviour drops during vacations due to the inability to behave as environmentally as one would ordinarily do at home. Juvan and Dolnicar [ 18 ] studied the environmental attitude and Sustainability 2020,12, 332; doi:10.3390/su12010332 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability Sustainability 2020,12, 332 2 of 19 behaviour gap between home and vacation settings. They reported that a number of respondents feel that holidays are an exception that justifies different behaviours. As Chubchuwong, Beise-Zee and Speece [ 6 ] suggested, tourists are not in their usual environment, and they tend to feel unobligated to be responsible for the environmental impacts created during their short stays. The factors associated with more pro-environmental attitudes and behaviours are still poorly understood [ 19 ]. Pro-environmental behaviour is extremely complex, both in its variety and in its causal factors [ 20 ]. It is necessary to know which factors influence environmental behaviour as a requirement for changing that behaviour [ 21 ] and for achieving sustainability, both at home and in the destinations visited [ 13 ]. There are several conditions that influence our sustainable behaviour. The existing literature broadly distinguishes between personal factors and contextual forces that influence green behaviour [ 22 ]. On the one hand, personal influences relate to attitudinal factors, personal capabilities and habits or routines [ 20 ]. On the other hand, situational or contextual influences relate to factors like social norms, government regulations, advertising or available technology [ 20 , 23 ]. The overall aim of this paper is to empirically examine the personal factors in pro-environmental behaviour from the tourist’s perspective. In particular, we analyse the interactions and relationships between environmental attitudes, habits and personal capabilities in a tourist golf context, observing the moderating effect of gender. The conclusions of Stern’s study [ 20 ] (p. 422) propose that “the causal factors may interact”. It is therefore necessary to study these interactions, which have received little attention in the literature thus far. This paper is conducted in the context of the golf tourism. In this sense, there is an extensive literature on golf courses and their negative environmental impacts, such as excessive water use, environmental pollution, chemical inputs and effects on wildlife and habitat [ 24 – 27 ]. However, as Minoli and Smith [ 28 ] affirm, golf courses have positive and negative environmental impacts. Thus, golf courses may have a potential role in biodiversity protection and management in human-dominated landscapes [ 29 ]. Therefore, sustainability research has been focused on the impacts of golf courses, and, to date, empirical studies on environmental attitudes and behaviours have been limited in golf tourism [30]. Numerous studies have examined the associations between gender and environmental behaviours [ 31 – 44 ]. In this sense, research on this field of study consistently finds that women participate more actively than men in ecological behaviours in the private sphere, such as recycling activity and green purchasing [ 32 , 43 ]. However, public sphere pro-environmental behaviours that focus on actions outside households, such as being a member of an activist group or protesting, align with masculine roles [ 35 ]. Another robust finding in the literature demonstrates that women show stronger pro-environmental values, beliefs, and attitudes than men [ 43 ]. Generally, the gender differences in environmental attitudes and behaviours may reflect the tendency for nature to be perceived as less critical by males than by females; still, this interpretation is rather provocative [ 33 ]. One explanation for this gender gap may be that men accept a higher degree of environmental damage, probably because their threshold for risk avoidance is more elevated than that of women [ 33 ]. Therefore, gender differences can be expected to affect the interactions and relationships between personal factors in the ecological behaviour of golf tourists. 2. Theoretical Foundations As several authors have suggested [ 45 , 46 ], the most common and accepted theories in the environmental psycho-social domain for understanding decision-making are the following: The Theory of Reasoned Action [ 47 ]; the Norm-Activation-Theory [ 48 ]; the Theory of Planned Behaviour [ 49 ]; and Value-Belief-Norm-Theory [ 50 ]. More than 80 percent of the relevant studies have used at least one of these four theories as a theoretical approach. Following Juvan and Dolnicar [ 51 ], other prevalent theories in the literature include Cognitive Dissonance Theory [ 52 ], Social Identity Theory [ 53 ] and Theory of Environmentally Significant Behaviour [20]. Sustainability 2020,12, 332 3 of 19 Scholars are actively conducting research on environmentally-related tourism and hospitality, although this topic is a relatively young one [ 4 , 54 – 56 ]. For example, Gao, Mattila and Lee [ 54 ] provide a meta-analysis examining the relationship between consumers’ perceptions and green behaviour through 26 articles published in hospitality journals. These authors indicated in their meta-analysis that the Theory of Planned Behaviour was used in 17 articles, the Theory of Reasoned Action was used in five articles and the Social Identity Theory was used in three articles. However, the applications of the Norm-Activation-Theory and the Value-Belief-Norm-Theory have been scarcer. Hence, it seems that only recent studies have been based on the Norm-Activation-Theory [ 12 , 57 , 58 ] and the Value-Belief-Norm-Theory [9,59–61]. Stern [ 20 ] develops a conceptual approach for advancing theories of Environmentally Significant Behaviour (ESB), which is focused on the Value-Belief-Norm Theory. However, this theory has not yet been used as the basis for the study of pro-environmental behaviour in the tourism context [ 18 ]. Stern [ 20 ] classifies the causal factors that determine ESB into four major categories affecting individual decision-making: attitudinal aspects, habits or routines, personal capabilities, and contextual forces. The first three of these factors are personal in nature. Stern’s [ 20 ] work has been cited numerous times. However, there are very few studies that have included all, or almost all, of these factors. In this sense, Russell and Fielding [ 62 ] provided an overview of the psychological literature reviewing the key drivers of water conservation behaviours. These authors examined the determinants of water conservation behaviours, categorizing them into five underlying causes: attitudes, beliefs, personal capabilities, habits or routines, and contextual forces. These authors separated beliefs from attitudinal factors, because it is commonly accepted that scholarship conceives of beliefs as precursors to attitudes. Wati, Koo and Chung [ 63 ] empirically studied the determinants of behaviour intention to use green technology, integrating attitudinal factors, contextual factors and personal capability. The findings indicated that personal norms (attitudinal factors) and legislative pressure (contextual factors) had positive and significant effects on the intention to use green information systems. They also found that eco-environmental knowledge (personal capabilities) also positively, significantly and indirectly influenced intention to use green technology. März [ 64 ] used a qualitatively method to understand the decision-making processes of small private landlords (SPL) when considering energy renovations. This author examined, in addition to economic aspects, related values, beliefs, norms, habits, personal capabilities and contextual factors. He analysed the interviews according to the model adapted from Stern [ 20 ], and demonstrated that all these factors play an important role in decision-making. According to the aforementioned personal factors developed by Stern [ 20 ], attitudes feature strongly in the pro-environmental behaviour literature [ 65 ]. Attitude is defined as an evaluation of an object or a behaviour [ 62 ]. Attitudinal factors include norms, beliefs and values [ 20 ]. These factors influence behavioural intentions which, in turn, impact on specific actions [ 16 ]. Recently, tourism research has supported the correlation between environmental attitudes and behaviours [ 5 , 30 , 66 , 67 ]. However, Juvan and Dolnicar [ 18 ] studied the attitude and behaviour gap between home and vacation settings, and found that having a positive environmental attitude does not emerge as a good predictor of making environmentally-sustainable vacation choices. According to this study, Kiatkawsin and Han [ 60 ] observed that a number of respondents indicated that “vacations are a special treat”, hinting at their internal justification to relax their normal routine. Personal capabilities may affect pro-environmental behaviours and ecological habits. Stern [ 20 ] (p. 417) defines personal capabilities as “knowledge and skills required for particular actions, the availability of time to act, and general capabilities and resources such as literacy, money, and social status and power”. This author also includes socio-demographic factors in his definition, because they may be proxies for behaviours that depend strongly on personal capabilities. In fact, within the environmental literature, most studies have focused on sociodemographic criteria [ 68 – 71 ] as indicators for personal capabilities. Thus, for example, energy-saving behaviour has been identified with Sustainability 2020,12, 332 4 of 19 younger, feminine, highly-educated, and high-income individuals in past studies [ 72 – 75 ]. However, following Dietz, Stern and Guagnano [ 32 ], for many environmentally-significant behaviours, it is possible that the socio-demographic variables have less explanatory power than knowledge, skills and competencies. In this sense, as Testa, Cosic and Iraldo [ 76 ] indicated, it is very difficult to classify the “green consumer” profile through demographic characteristics. According to Dolnicar, Crouch and Long [ 77 ], age and gender are the central socio-demographic personal characteristics associated with environmental behaviour. Several studies have investigated the possible relationships between sociodemographic data and environmental behaviour without yielding conclusive results [ 13 ]. Sudbury-Riley, Hofmeister-Toth and Kohlbacher [ 78 ] also confirmed that the general findings on demographics and ecological consumption are inconclusive. In the present study, gender is posed as a moderating factor in the relationships between the examined variables. Lynn [ 79 ] identified three dimensions of pro-environmental behaviours: at-home, transport-related and purchasing behaviour. However, in the present study, pro-environmental habits have been interpreted from two different perspectives: (i) ecological habits of internal consumption, with a direct effect inside the home; and (ii) ecological habits of external consumption, with a direct effect outside of the home. Based on this rationale, the following hypotheses were developed: Hypothesis 1a (H1a). Personal capabilities may positively influence internally-oriented habits in golf tourists. Hypothesis 1b (H1b). Gender may act as a moderator on the relationship between personal capabilities and internally-oriented habits in golf tourists. Hypothesis 2a (H2a). Personal capabilities may positively influence externally-oriented habits in golf tourists. Hypothesis 2b (H2b). Gender may act as a moderator on the relationship between personal capabilities and externally-oriented habits in golf tourists. Hypothesis 3a (H3a). Personal capabilities may positively influence attitudes in golf tourists. Hypothesis 3b (H3b). Gender may act as a moderator on the relationship between personal capabilities and attitudes in golf tourists. Habits also feature strongly in the pro-environmental behaviour literature [ 65 ]. Habit is defined as situation-behaviour sequences that are automatic and occur without self-instruction; furthermore, ordinarily, the individual is not ‘conscious’ of these sequences [ 80 ]. As Klöckner and Matthies [ 81 ] suggest, habit is different from other concepts used as synonyms in the literature, such as routine, repeated actions and past behaviour. Hence, these two authors consider habit as a behavioural script. In this sense, habit strength is the degree of automaticity a behaviour has in a given stable situation [ 45 ]. The environmental attitude-behaviour gap is frequently studied in the literature [ 22 , 30 , 82 – 86 ]. However, the relationship between environmental habits and attitude or behaviour has received marginal attention. Habits have less relevance for the research agenda [ 87 , 88 ], although they are considered to be among the key determinants of ecological behaviour [ 20 , 89 ]. Therefore, the following hypotheses are to be studied: Hypothesis 4a (H4a). Internally-oriented habits may positively influence attitudes in golf tourists. Hypothesis 4b (H4b). Gender may act as a moderator on the relationship between internally-oriented habits and attitudes in golf tourists. Hypothesis 5a (H5a). Externally-oriented habits may positively influence attitudes in golf tourists. Sustainability 2020,12, 332 5 of 19 Hypothesis 5b (H5b). Gender may act as a moderator on the relationship between externally-oriented habits and attitudes in golf tourists. Dolnicar, Crouch and Long [ 77 ] conducted a review of tourism research and found that environmentally-friendly tourists are more educated and earn more money; however, further study is required with respect to age and gender, because the results were not entirely clear. Following Mehmetoglu [ 13 ], previous studies have indicated that women worry more about environmental issues, whereas studies of the effect of age have produced contradictory results. Finally, a key issue in this study is to check whether Stern’s [ 20 ] proposition holds, i.e., that the causal factors may have interactions, and if so, which factors do so. The present study is based on the personal variables influencing environmentally-significant behaviours, including attitudes, habits and personal capabilities, in addition to gender as a moderator. Based on the Stern’s proposal [ 20 ], the following hypotheses were developed: Hypothesis 6a (H6a). Interactions between personal capabilities and internally-oriented habits may positively influence attitudes in golf tourists. Hypothesis 6b (H6b). Gender may act as a moderator on the interaction between both personal capabilities and internally-oriented habits and the influence on attitudes in golf tourists. Hypothesis 7a (H7a). Interactions between personal capabilities and internally-oriented habits may positively influence attitudes in golf tourists. Hypothesis 7b (H7b). Gender may act as a moderator on the interaction between both personal capabilities and externally-oriented habits and the influence on attitudes in golf tourists. Hypothesis 8a (H8a). Interactions between internally- and externally-oriented habits may positively influence attitudes in golf tourists. Hypothesis 8b (H8b). Gender may act as a moderator on the interaction between internally- and externally-oriented habits and their influence on attitudes in golf tourists. By integrating all these research hypotheses, the proposed theoretical model of this study is shown in Figure 1. Sustainability 2020, 12, 332 5 of 18 Dolnicar, Crouch and Long [77] conducted a review of tourism research and found that environmentally-friendly tourists are more educated and earn more money; however, further study is required with respect to age and gender, because the results were not entirely clear. Following Mehmetoglu [13], previous studies have indicated that women worry more about environmental issues, whereas studies of the effect of age have produced contradictory results. Finally, a key issue in this study is to check whether Stern’s [20] proposition holds, i.e., that the causal factors may have interactions, and if so, which factors do so. The present study is based on the personal variables influencing environmentally-significant behaviours, including attitudes, habits and personal capabilities, in addition to gender as a moderator. Based on the Stern’s proposal [20], the following hypotheses were developed: Hypothesis 6a (H6a). Interactions between personal capabilities and internally-oriented habits may positively influence attitudes in golf tourists. Hypothesis 6b (H6b). Gender may act as a moderator on the interaction between both personal capabilities and internally-oriented habits and the influence on attitudes in golf tourists. Hypothesis 7a (H7a). Interactions between personal capabilities and internally-oriented habits may positively influence attitudes in golf tourists. Hypothesis 7b (H7b). Gender may act as a moderator on the interaction between both personal capabilities and externally-oriented habits and the influence on attitudes in golf tourists. Hypothesis 8a (H8a). Interactions between internally- and externally-oriented habits may positively influence attitudes in golf tourists. Hypothesis 8b (H8b). Gender may act as a moderator on the interaction between internally- and externally-oriented habits and their influence on attitudes in golf tourists. By integrating all these research hypotheses, the proposed theoretical model of this study is shown in Figure 1. H4a Personal capabilities H1a H5a External habits Internal habits Attitudes H2a H3a Pers. Capab. & Int. Habits Pers. Capab. & Ext. Habits Int. Habits & Ext. Habits Gender H1b H3b H2b H4b H5b H6a H7a H8a H8b H7b H6b Figure 1. Proposed research model. Figure 1. Proposed research model. Sustainability 2020,12, 332 6 of 19 3. Materials and Methods 3.1. Participants and Data Collection This study confines the sample to golf tourists. All respondents reported that playing golf was one of the main motivations of their trip. Moreover, they had significant experience as golf players, with an average of 14.8 years of practising this sport. Golf tourism takes place outdoors and provides products and services that are focused on the environment. The environmental concerns of golf tourists can have a wide impact on the attractiveness and competitiveness of a destination [30]. A sample of 347 European golf tourists from 16 countries completed a questionnaire on their environmental attitudes, habits and behaviours. The sample characteristics are gathered in Table 1. This study confines the sample to only respondents with higher education, because previous research has suggested a strong relationship between education level and pro-environmental behaviour [ 37 ]. A higher education level is positively correlated with concern about environmental issues. Moreover, research on golf identified that the majority of players had college/university or more advanced academic degrees [ 11 , 90 ]. The respondents were selected using a convenience sampling method. The tourists who participated in the study were visiting the destination where the golf course was located. It is a very diversified sample, especially with respect to age and gender. There were 82 females and 265 males. Table 1. Sample characteristics (N =347). Characteristics N % Gender Male 265 76.37 Female 82 23.63 Age 18–29 16 4.61 30–39 48 13.83 40–49 88 25.36 50–59 83 23.92 60–69 90 25.94 70+22 6.34 Country Spain 210 60.52 Germany 50 14.41 United Kingdom 36 10.37 Sweden 9 2.59 Ireland 8 2.31 Belgium 6 1.73 Finland 5 1.44 Italy 5 1.44 Netherlands 4 1.15 Norway 4 1.15 Denmark 2 0.58 Iceland 2 0.58 Luxembourg 2 0.58 Swiss 2 0.58 Albania 1 0.29 France 1 0.29 Years of playing golf 1–3 43 12.39 4–10 136 39.19 11–20 98 28.24 20+70 20.17 Current handicap 1–10 38 10.95 10.1–20 147 42.36 20.1–30 113 32.56 30+49 14.12 Sustainability 2020,12, 332 7 of 19 Indeed, golf tourists could be considered relatively highly educated and more likely spend more money at the destination; therefore, they should be closer to being considered as environment-friendly tourists [ 77 ]. The questionnaire was handed out on several golf courses located on the Andalusian coast (Spain), because this area receives a large influx of international tourists. A team of interviewers conducted the surveys. 3.2. Measures Variables such as age, educational attainment, race and income may be indicators or proxies for personal capabilities [ 20 ]. However, we believe that the personal capabilities of golf tourists can be better represented by their golf handicaps. A golf handicap is a numerical measure of a golfer’s skill or ability: the lower the number, the better the player [ 91 , 92 ]. As McHale [ 91 ] states, the handicap is the extra number of shots above the course par that the player should, on average, take in one round. For example, this measure is used by Schön, Ehrmann and Rost [93] as proxies for managers’ extra effort. The questionnaire of the present study includes questions about the current handicap and the highest handicap reached by a golfer. The handicap can be considered as a consequence of the frequency of playing golf. We have also asked about the player’s years of experience, since this can provide insights into the extent in which their environmental behaviours reflect continued exposure to the outdoors. Thus, a personal capabilities scale has been developed based on these three indicators. The scale’s items are as follows: (1) the handicap that the player currently has; (2) the highest handicap that the player has reached; (3) the current handicap divided by the years of experience; and (4) the highest handicap divided by the years of experience. Attitudinal factors have been measured through the Brief Ecological Paradigm (BEP) scale, which was developed by L ó pez-Bonilla and L ó pez-Bonilla [ 94 ]. This scale is a short-form measure consisting of five items and providing a balanced measure of the four facets identified in the Revised NEP scale. The New Environmental Paradigm (NEP) scales have become the most widely-used measures of environmental concern in the world [ 95 ]. The NEP scales are based on general attitudes regarding the relationship of human beings to the environment [ 96 ]. The BEP scale was measured using a Likert-type scale (1 =totally disagree to 5 =totally agree). Internally- and externally-oriented habits were measured following the work of Dolnicar and Leisch [ 97 ], which includes questions on environmentally-friendly behaviour in the home setting. We selected two items for each variable, i.e., internal and external habits. We suggest that these ecological habits at home can be divided into two categories, depending on whether these habitual behaviours have a direct effect inside or outside of the home. For example, it is different to save domestic water than to vote for a political candidate who has expressed a high degree of environmental concern. There is an individualistic perspective, inside the house, and a more collectivist perspective outside of the house. Both scales were measured through a Likert-type scale (1 =totally disagree to 5 = totally agree). 3.3. Analytical Procedure Structural equation modelling was used for the analyses of the hypothesised relationships. In this context, models based on covariances and on variances can be distinguished. The differences between both types have been explored in diverse studies [ 98 , 99 ]. In the present investigation, partial least squares path modelling (PLS-PM) is used, which is based on variances. PLS-PM has been provided as open-source software, and was included in the free R software environment developed by S á nchez [ 100 ]. Sustainability 2020,12, 332 8 of 19 4. Results 4.1. Analysis of the Measurement Model 4.1.1. Unidimensionality of Indicators According to the rule that a Cronbach’s alpha greater than 0.7 is considered acceptable, personal capabilities and environmental attitudes are good blocks of indicators, but externally-oriented habits are not (see Table 2). Dillon-Goldstein’s rho considers that a block is unidimensional when it is larger than 0.7. This index is considered a better indicator than Cronbach ´ s alpha. If the four latent variables have values greater than 0.7, then they adequately explain their blocks of indicators. The third metric that is used to contrast the unidimensionality of the indicators is the comparison of the first and second eigenvalues of the correlation matrix of each set of indicators. If the results show that the first eigenvalue is larger than 1 but the second is smaller, then the unidimensionality of indicators is demonstrated. Table 2. Unidimensionality of the constructs. Variables C.alpha DG.rho Eig.1st Eig.2nd Personal capabilities 0.959 0.970 3.56 0.389 Internally-oriented habits 0.453 0.785 1.29 0.707 Externally-oriented habits 0.614 0.838 1.44 0.557 Environmental Attitudes 0.871 0.907 3.31 0.659 4.1.2. Convergent Validity Table 3shows that loadings greater than 0.7 and communalities greater than 0.5 are acceptable. Nevertheless, loadings lower than 0.7 are acceptable too if they are greater than 0.5 and the rest of indicators of the same construct are greater than 0.7 [101]. Table 3. Loadings and communalities. Variables Items Weight Loading Communality Personal capabilities PC1 0.248 0.932 0.868 PC2 0.289 0.944 0.891 PC3 0.253 0.949 0.900 PC4 0.271 0.948 0.898 Internally-oriented habits IOH1 0.464 0.687 0.471 IOH2 0.761 0.896 0.804 Externally-oriented habits EOH1 0.207 0.602 0.362 EOH2 0.891 0.983 0.966 Environmental attitudes EA1 0.222 0.821 0.675 EA2 0.248 0.732 0.535 EA3 0.267 0.863 0.745 EA4 0.272 0.872 0.760 EA5 0.220 0.768 0.590 Table 4details the other two measurements for the convergent validity. Hence, if the composite reliability (CR) and average of extracted variance (AVE) are greater than 0.7, then the convergent validity index (loadings, CR and AVE) of the different latent variables is corroborated. Sustainability 2020,12, 332 9 of 19 Table 4. Composite reliability (CR) and Average Variance Extracted (AVE). Variables Composite Reliability AVE Personal capabilities 0.970 0.889 Internally-oriented habits 0.776 0.637 Externally-oriented habits 0.789 0.664 Environmental Attitudes 0.907 0.661 4.1.3. Discriminant Validity Discriminant validity of the constructs of the research model is evaluated by using the average variance extracted (AVE), as proposed by Fornell and Larcker [ 102 ]. The results, which are presented in Table 5, show that all the correlations are lower than the variances, and, therefore, that discriminant validity exists. The correlation between the latent variables is represented below the diagonal of the table, while the square root of the AVE is located on the diagonal. Table 5. Discriminant validity. Variables Personal Capabilities Internally-Oriented Habits Externally-Oriented Habits Environmental Attitudes Personal capabilities 0.9428 Internally-oriented habits 0.1155 0.7981 Externally-oriented habits 0.0858 0.2936 0.8148 Environmental Attitudes −0.0038 −0.1860 0.2271 0.8130 The convergent and discriminant analyses demonstrate the validity of the measurement model. 4.2. Analysis of the Structural Model To contrast the precision of the parameter that estimates the different relationship between the latent variables in both female and male groups, bootstrapping was used with one thousand samples. The results are shown in Table 6. This table shows the relationships and interactions that are corroborated with a significance level of the 5%. Therefore, Hypotheses H1a, H2a and H4a are confirmed in both sexes; Hypotheses H5a and H7a are confirmed only in men; and Hypotheses H3a, H6a and H8a are rejected in both sexes. Table 6. Groups of men and women (Paths). Relationships/Interactions G Original Mean.Boot Std.Error Perc.025 Perc.975 Sig. Personal capabilities →Internally-oriented habits M 0.0900 0.0873 0.0482 0.00187 0.1868 Yes W 0.0853 0.098 0.125 −0.1618 0.327 Yes Personal capabilities →Externally-oriented habits M 0.1111 0.1089 0.0441 0.01896 0.1961 Yes W 0.2241 0.2243 0.103 0.0232 0.421 Yes Personal capabilities →Environmental attitudes M−0.0838 −0.0912 0.0913 −0.29168 0.0655 No W−0.0838 −0.0912 0.0913 −0.29168 0.0655 No Internally-oriented habits → Environmental attitudes M 0.2468 0.2393 0.0718 0.10014 0.3717 Yes W 0.3737 0.3569 0.141 0.0463 0.613 Yes Externally-oriented habits → Environmental attitudes M−0.2708 −0.2700 0.0645 −0.39320 −0.1499 Yes W−0.1360 −0.1494 0.126 −0.4024 0.106 No Personal capabilities and Internally-oriented habits →Environmental attitudes M−0.1302 −0.1384 0.0790 −0.29931 0.0222 No W 0.1315 0.1334 0.138 −0.1628 0.382 No Personal capabilities and Externally-oriented habits →Environmental attitudes M 0.1597 0.1816 0.0981 0.02649 0.3910 Yes W−0.0234 −0.0406 0.137 −0.3469 0.207 No Externally-oriented habits and Internally-oriented habits →Environmental attitudes M−0.0325 −0.0344 0.0681 −0.16585 0.0997 No W 0.0487 0.0330 0.163 −0.3287 0.317 No Sustainability 2020,12, 332 16 of 19 65. Miller, D.; Merrilees, B.; Coghlan, A. Sustainable Urban Tourism: Understanding and Developing Visitor Pro-Environmental Behaviours. J. Sustain. Tour. 2015,23, 26–46. [CrossRef] 66. Lee, T.H.; Jan, F.H. The Influence of Recreation Experience and Environmental Attitude on the Environmentally Responsible Behavior of Community-Based Tourists in Taiwan. J. Sustain. Tour. 2015 ,23, 1063–1094. [CrossRef] 67. Li, L.; Wang, L.Y. An empirical study on the effect of eco-tourism visitors’ environmental attitudes on environmental behavior. Appl. Ecol. Environ. Res. 2017,15, 91–101. [CrossRef] 68. Clark, W.A.; Finley, J.C. Determinants of Water Conservation Intention in Blagoevgrad, Bulgaria. Soc. Nat. Resour. 2007,20, 613–627. [CrossRef] 69. Gilg, A.; Barr, S. Behavioural Attitudes Towards Water Saving? Evidence from a Study of Environmental Actions. Ecol. Econ. 2006,57, 400–414. [CrossRef] 70. Lam, S.P. Predicting intention to save water: Theory of Planned Behavior, Response Efficacy, Vulnerability, and Perceived Efficiency of Alternative Solutions. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 2006,36, 2803–2824. [CrossRef] 71. Testa, F.; Iraldo, F.; Tessitore, S.; Frey, M. Strategies and Approaches Green Advertising: An Empirical Analysis of the Italian Context. Int. J. Environ. Sustain. Dev. 2011,10, 375–395. [CrossRef] 72. Roberts, J.A. Profiling Levels of Socially Responsible Consumer Behavior: A Cluster Analytic Approach and Its Implications for Marketing. J. Mark. Theory Pract. 1995,3, 97–117. [CrossRef] 73. Roberts, J.A. Green Consumers in the 1990s: Profile and Implications for Advertising. J. Bus. Res. 1996 ,36, 217–231. [CrossRef] 74. Sardianou, E. Estimating Energy Conservation Patterns of Greek Households. Energy Policy 2007 ,35, 3778–3791. [CrossRef] 75. Zimmer, M.R.; Stafford, T.F.; Stafford, M.R. Green Issues: Dimensions of Environmental Concern. J. Bus. Res. 1994,30, 63–74. [CrossRef] 76. Testa, F.; Cosic, A.; Iraldo, F. Determining Factors of Curtailment and Purchasing Energy Related Behaviours. J. Clean. Prod. 2016,112, 3810–3819. [CrossRef] 77. Dolnicar, S.; Crouch, G.I.; Long, P. Environmentally Friendly Tourists: What do We Really Know about Them? J. Sustain. Tour. 2008,16, 197–210. [CrossRef] 78. Sudbury-Riley, L.; Hofmeister-Toth, A.; Kohlbacher, F. A Cross-National Study of the Ecological Worldview of Senior Consumers. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2014,38, 500–509. [CrossRef] 79. Lynn, P. Distinguishing Dimensions of Pro-Environmental Behaviour; ISER Working Paper Series, No. 2014-19; University of Essex, Institute for Social and Economic Research (ISER): Colchester, UK, 2014; Available online: http://hdl.handle.net/10419/123804 (accessed on 25 June 2019). 80. Triandis, H.C. Values, Attitudes, and Interpersonal Behavior. In Nebraska Symposium on Motivation 1979: Beliefs, Attitudes, and Values; Page, M.M., Ed.; University of Nebraska Press: Lincoln, NE, USA, 1980. 81. Klöckner, C.A.; Matthies, E. How Habits Interfere with Norm-Directed Behaviour: A Normative Decision-Making Model for Travel Mode Choice. J. Environ. Psychol. 2004,24, 319–327. [CrossRef] 82. Hwang, K.; Lee, J. Antecedents and Consequences of Ecotourism Behavior: Independent and Interdependent Self-Construals, Ecological Belief, Willingness to Pay for Ecotourism Services and Satisfaction with Life. Sustainability 2018,10, 789. [CrossRef] 83. Lee, Y.K. A Comparative Study of Green Purchase Intention between Korean and Chinese Consumers: The Moderating Role of Collectivism. Sustainability 2017,9, 1930. [CrossRef] 84. Moraes, C.; Carrigan, M.; Szmigin, I. The Coherence of Inconsistencies: Attitude-behaviour Gaps and New Consumption Communities. J. Mark. Manag. 2012,28, 103–128. [CrossRef] 85. Pronello, C.; Gaborieau, J.B. Engaging in Pro-Environment Travel Behaviour Research from a Psycho-Social Perspective: A Review of Behavioural Variables and Theories. Sustainability 2018,10, 2412. [CrossRef] 86. Schill, M.; Shaw, D. Recycling Today, Sustainability Tomorrow: Effects of Psychological Distance on Behavioural Practice. Eur. Manag. J. 2016,34, 349–362. [CrossRef] 87. Scott, A.; Oates, C.; Young, W. A Conceptual Framework of the Adoption and Practice of Environmental Actions in Households. Sustainability 2015,7, 5793–5818. [CrossRef] 88. Verplanken, B.; Aarts, H. Habit, Attitude, and Planned Behaviour: Is Habit an Empty Construct or an Interesting Case of Goal-directed Automaticity? Eur. Rev. Soc. Psychol. 1999,10, 101–134. [CrossRef] 89. Dahlstrand, U.; Biel, A. Pro-environmental Habits: Propensity Levels in Behavioural Change. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 1997,27, 588–601. [CrossRef] Sustainability 2020,12, 332 17 of 19 90. Lyu, S.O.; Lee, Y. How Do Golf Tourists Manage Golfing Constraints? A Choice Modeling Approach. J. Hosp. Tour. Res. 2018,42, 295–318. [CrossRef] 91. McHale, I.G. Assessing the Fairness of the Golf Handicapping System in the UK. J. Sports Sci. 2010 ,28, 1033–1041. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 92. European Golf Association (EGA). Handicap System Manual. Available online: http://www.ega-golf.ch/ page/system-manual (accessed on 20 June 2019). 93. Schön, C.; Ehrmann, T.; Rost, K. Ownership, Visibility and Effort: Golf Handicaps as Proxies for Top Managers’ Extra Effort. KYKLOS 2015,68, 255–274. [CrossRef] 94. L ó pez-Bonilla, L.M.; L ó pez-Bonilla, J.M. From the New Environmental Paradigm to the Brief Ecological Paradigm: A revised Scale in Golf Tourism. Anatolia 2016,27, 227–236. [CrossRef] 95. Dunlap, R.E. The New Environmental Paradigm Scale: From Marginality to Worldwide Use. J. Environ. Educ. 2008,40, 3–18. [CrossRef] 96. L ó pez-Bonilla, J.M.; L ó pez-Bonilla, L.M. Environmental Orientation in Tourism: The RTEO Scale. Curr. Issues Tour. 2012,15, 591–596. [CrossRef] 97. Dolnicar, S.; Leisch, F. Selective Marketing for Environmentally Sustainable Tourism. Tour. Manag. 2008 ,29, 672–680. [CrossRef] 98. L ó pez-Bonilla, L.M.; L ó pez-Bonilla, J.M. Estudio Comparado de las Estimaciones de Dos Versiones del Modelo de Aceptaci ó n de la Technolog í a (TAM) mediante los Programas AMOS y PLS. Investigaciones Europeas De Dirección Y Economía De La Empresa 2006,12, 95–110. 99. L ó pez-Bonilla, L.M.; L ó pez-Bonilla, J.M. Explaining the Discrepancy in the Mediating Role of Attitude in the TAM. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 2017,48, 940–949. [CrossRef] 100. Sanchez, G. PLS Path Modeling with R; Trowchez Editions: Berkeley, CA, USA, 2013. 101. Chin, W.W. The Partial Least Squares Approach to Structural Equation Modeling. In Modern Methods for Business Research; Marcoulides, G.A., Ed.; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Hillsdale, NJ, USA, 1998; pp. 295–336. 102. Fornell, C.; Larcker, D. Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error. J. Mark. Res. 1981,18, 39–50. [CrossRef] 103. Sarstedt, M.; Henseler, J.; Ringle, C. Multigroup Analysis in Partial Least Squares (PLS) Path Modeling: Alternative Methods and Empirical Results. In Measurement and Research Methods in International Marketing; Sarstedt, M., Schwaiger, M., Taylor, C., Eds.; Emerald Group Publishing Limited: Bingley, UK, 2011; Volume 22, pp. 195–218. 104. Falk, R.F.; Miller, N.B. A Primer for Soft Modeling; The University of Akron Press: Akron, OH, USA, 1992. 105. Briassoulis, H. “Sorry Golfers, this is not your Spot!”: Exploring Public Opposition to Golf Development. J. Sport Soc. Issues 2010,34, 288–311. [CrossRef] 106. Kim, J.H.; Ritchie, B.W. Motivation-based Typology: An Empirical Study of Golf Tourists. J. Hosp. Tour. Res. 2012,36, 251–280. [CrossRef] 107. Bamberg, S.; Schmidt, P. Incentives, Morality, or Habit? Predicting Students’ Car Use for University Routes with the Models of Ajzen, Schwartz, and Triandis. Environ. Behav. 2003,35, 264–285. [CrossRef] 108. Verplanken, B.; Aarts, H.; van Knippenberg, A.; Moonen, A. Habit versus Planned Behaviour: A Field Experiment. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 1998,37, 111–128. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 109. Jansson, J.; Marell, A.; Nordlund, A. Green Consumer Behavior: Determinants of Curtailment and Eco-innovation Adoption. J. Consum. Mark. 2010,27, 358–370. [CrossRef] 110. Moller, B.; Thogersen, J. Car Use Habits: An Obstacle to the Use of Public Transportation? In Road Pricing, the Economy and the Environment; Jensen-Butler, C., Sloth, B., Larsen, M.M., Madsen, B., Nielsen, O.A., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2008; pp. 301–313. 111. Miao, L.; Wei, W. Consumers’ Pro-environmental Behavior and the Underlying Motivations: A Comparison between Household and Hotel Settings. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2013,32, 102–112. [CrossRef] 112. Gungor, B.S.; Chen, J.; Wu, S.R.; Zhou, P.; Shirkey, G. Does Plant Knowledge within Urban Forests and Parks Directly Influence Visitor Pro-Environmental Behaviors. Forests 2018,9, 171. [CrossRef] 113. Eom, K.; Kim, H.S.; Sherman, D.K.; Ishii, K. Cultural Variability in the Link between Environmental Concern and Support for Environmental Action. Psychol. Sci. 2016,27, 1331–1339. [CrossRef] 114. McCarty, J.A.; Shrum, L.J. The Influence of Individualism, Collectivism, and Locus of Control on Environmental Beliefs and Behavior. J. Public Policy Mark. 2001,20, 93–104. [CrossRef] Sustainability 2020,12, 332 18 of 19 115. Ling-Yee, L. Effect of Collectivist Orientation and Ecological Attitude on Actual Environmental Commitment. J. Int. Consum. Mark. 1997,9, 31–53. [CrossRef] 116. Higueras-Castillo, E.; Liebana-Cabanillas, F.J.; Muñoz-Leiva, F.; Molinillo, S. The Role of Collectivism in Modeling the Adoption of Renewable Energies: A Cross-Cultural Approach. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2019,16, 2143–2160. [CrossRef] 117. Higueras-Castillo, E.; Muñoz-Leiva, F.; Liebana-Cabanillas, F.J. An Examination of Attributes and Barriers to Adopt Biomass and Solar Technology. A Cross-Cultural Approach. J. Environ. Manag. 2019 ,236, 639–648. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 118. Cho, Y.-N.; Thyroff, A.; Rapert, M.I.; Park, S.-Y.; Lee, H.J. To Be or not to Be Green: Exploring Individualism and Collectivism as Antecedents of Environmental Behaviour. J. Bus. Res. 2013,66, 1052–1059. [CrossRef] 119. Sivadas, E.; Bruvold, N.T.; Nelson, M.R. A Reduced Version of the Horizontal and Vertical Individualism and Collectivism Scale: A Four-Country Assessment. J. Bus. Res. 2008,62, 201–210. [CrossRef] 120. Hall, C.M. Intervening in Academic Interventions: Framing Social Marketing’s Potential for Successful Sustainable Tourism Behavioural Change. J. Sustain. Tour. 2016,24, 350–375. [CrossRef] 121. Truong, V.D.; Hall, C.M. Social Marketing and Tourism: What is the Evidence? Soc. Mark. Q. 2013 ,19, 110–135. [CrossRef] 122. Truong, V.D.; Hall, C.M. Corporate Social Marketing in Tourism: To Sleep or not to Sleep with the Enemy? J. Sustain. Tour. 2017,25, 884–902. [CrossRef] 123. Testa, F.; Iraldo, F.; Vaccari, A.; Ferrari, E. Why Eco-Labels can be Effective Marketing Tools: Evidence from a Study on Italian Consumers. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2015,24, 252–265. [CrossRef] 124. Calder, B.J.; Phillips, L.W.; Tybout, A.M. Designing Research for Application. J. Consum. Res. 1981 ,8, 197–207. [CrossRef] 125. Jun, J.; Kyle, G.T. Gender Identity, Leisure Identity, and Leisure Participation. J. Leis. Res. 2012 ,44, 353–378. [CrossRef] 126. Kitching, N.; Grix, J.; Phillpotts, L. Shifting Hegemony in ‘a Man’s World’: Incremental Change for Female Golf Professional Employment. Sport Soc. 2017,20, 1530–1547. [CrossRef] 127. Reis, H.; Correia, A. Gender Asymmetries in Golf Participation. J. Hosp. Mark. Manag. 2013 ,22, 67–91. [CrossRef] 128. Chan, R.Y.K. Environmental Attitudes and Behavior of Consumers in China: Survey Findings and Implications. J. Int. Consum. Mark. 1999,11, 25–52. [CrossRef] 129. Franzen, A. Environmental Attitudes in International Comparison: An Analysis of the ISSP Surveys 1993 and 2000. Soc. Sci. Q. 2003,84, 297–308. [CrossRef] 130. Kang, M.; Moscardo, G. Exploring Cross-cultural Differences in Attitudes towards Responsible Tourist Behaviour: A Comparison of Korean, British and Australian Tourists. Asia Pac. J. Tour. Res. 2006 ,11, 303–320. [CrossRef] 131. Knussen, C.; Yule, F. “I’m Not in the Habit of Recycling” The Role of Habitual Behavior in the Disposal of Household Waste. Environ. Behav. 2008,40, 683–702. [CrossRef] 132. Eagly, A.H.; Chaiken, S. The Psychology of Attitudes; Harcourt Brace Jovanovich: Fort Worth, TX, USA, 1993. 133. Verplanken, B. Beyond Frequency: Habit as Mental Construct. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 2006 ,45, 639–656. [CrossRef] 134. Kurz, T.; Gardner, B.; Verplanken, B.; Abraham, C. Habitual Behaviors or Patterns of Practice? Explaining and Changing Repetitive Climate-relevant Actions. WIREs Clime Chang. 2015,6, 113–128. [CrossRef] © 2019 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 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).