Next Article in Journal
Sustainable Development of Energy, Water and Environment Systems (SDEWES 2022)
Previous Article in Journal
Sustainable City Planning and Development: Transport and Land Use
Previous Article in Special Issue
Transformative Experiences in Cycling Tourism: A Conceptual Framework
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 15
Issue 22
10.3390/su152215803
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Do Perceptions of Destination Social Responsibility Contribute to Environmentally Responsible Behavior? A Case Study in Phu Quoc, Vietnam

by
Huan Minh Nguyen
* and
Yen Nguyen
*
Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities, Ton Duc Thang University, Ho Chi Minh City 72900, Vietnam
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2023, 15(22), 15803; https://doi.org/10.3390/su152215803
Submission received: 2 September 2023 / Revised: 27 October 2023 / Accepted: 8 November 2023 / Published: 10 November 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Tourist Satisfaction, Sustainability, and Sustainable Tourism Development)
Browse Figure
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This study examined the direct and indirect relationships between perceptions of destination social responsibility and environmentally responsible behavior. This paper uses the Stimulus–Organism–Response theory to evaluate the mediating roles of identification, reputation, and satisfaction of the destination for visitors. With a sample size of 371 Vietnamese tourists, PLS-SEM was used to assess the model and test the hypothesis. The findings indicate that the perception of destination social responsibility positively impacts Vietnamese tourists’ commitment to environmentally responsible behavior. The results also support the concept that the degree of tourists’ environmentally responsible behavior is indirectly influenced by the perceived social responsibility of the destination through its identification, reputation, and satisfaction. This study offers theoretical and practical insights into how to enhance the efficiency of destination social responsibility programs and improve Vietnamese tourist’s impressions of Phu Quoc.

1. Introduction

The critical factor for sustainable destination development is the role of stakeholders as essential players in the process of sustainable destination development [1]. Tourists have been acknowledged as significant stakeholders in destination management, exerting a substantial influence on the sustainability of tourism [2]. How tourists evaluate a destination affects their willingness to engage in its development and their general attitude towards visiting. Additionally, tourists continue to interact with destinations where they can find social or psychological values which resonate with them [3]. It is possible that tourists, as members of society, have the same ethical and value-based perspectives that are advocated for by destination social responsibility (DSR) projects. Understanding the key factors contributing to environmentally responsible behavior (ERB) is imperative. Alongside tourists, the sustainable development of destinations involves the effective participation of destination management organizations (DMOs). By following discourses aiming to contribute to “better tourism” (i.e., more sustainable tourism), DMOs, by employing DSR, can adopt a sustainable approach within the tourism paradigm [4]. The change in tourists’ perceptions and behaviors, along with the advancement of tourism managers’ thinking, has led to demands to enhance DSR activities to raise awareness among tourists, in turn promoting responsible tourism behavior.
When considering processes that rely on the collaborative efforts of human communities, which all destinations, to some extent, must do, it is important to acknowledge that a universal solution cannot be applied. A variety of concerns and priorities will impact operations in different places. Specifically, Phu Quoc tourism (Vietnam) has particular characteristics in terms of tourism resources and management policies when compared to other destinations worldwide. According to the adjusted master plan to develop Phu Quoc to 2030, Phu Quoc aims to become one of the most important tourist centers in Vietnam, with a series of international-standard resorts containing a wide variety of entertainments.
Nevertheless, many things could be improved in the management of tourism development projects aimed at preserving ecological, socio-cultural values in the locality. With the rapid development of tourism, the marine ecosystem has been seriously degraded. For instance, the severe decrease in sea urchins in Phu Quoc was due to an increased culinary demand from tourists [5], and 56.6% of coral reefs became bleached and have consequently perished in enormous numbers [6]. Therefore, it causes ecological imbalances and declines in aquatic resources. In order to fully comprehend the issue, research into Phu Quoc is essential.
Additionally, this study is interested in other aspects of Phu Quoc’s tourism from the tourists’ perspective, including destination reputation (DR), destination identification (DI), and destination satisfaction (DS). Although these factors have been investigated at various topic levels and with diverse study scopes, they have yet to be evaluated systematically. For the DR, it can be found in the online marketing sector [7,8]. In the field of tourism, building and sustaining a positive image can be achieved by engaging in socially responsible endeavors [9]. For the DI, place branding or online promotion are topics that can be included [10,11]. In tourism destinations, it contributes to promoting attachment to a destination, thereby creating the intention or behavior of tourists to protect the environment [12]. DS is a factor in consumer behavior [13]. DS plays a crucial role, impacting both the recall of experiences and tourists’ ERB. In essence, tourists who have a fulfilling experience are more inclined to remember it and engage in actions that benefit the environment [3].
As a result, this study suggests a model in which the variables DI, DS, and DR are considered together and used as intermediate variables to test the role of the relationship between DSR and ERB as a mediator. The current study tests the correlation between DSR and ERB within the Stimulus–Organism–Response theoretical framework. This study evaluates tourists’ awareness of DMO activities in Phu Quoc. The paper proposes responses based on the implications of this research suggesting that DMOs might do well to promote the willingness of tourists to support the conservation of natural and cultural values in Phu Quoc.

2. Literature Review and Hypotheses

2.1. Stimulus–Organism–Response (S-O-R) Framework

The Stimulus–Organism–Response (S-O-R) framework was originally proposed by Mehrabian and Russell [14] as a means to demonstrate the association between inputs (stimulus), processes (organism), and outputs (response). The sequence of stages begins with environmental stimuli that affect an individual’s cognitive and emotional state, which affects the individual’s approach or avoidance behavior [15]. The decision to utilize S-O-R in this study was made due to the model’s adaptability in systematically understanding human behavior [16]. In this study, the perception of DSR is mentioned as a stimulus to consider the possibility of directly and indirectly promoting ERB (response) through DI, DR, and DS (organism).

2.2. Destination Social Responsibility Perception Is a Stimulus (S)

DSR is relevant to academic studies of tourism, visitor and management thinking, and practical policies, and can be used to mitigate the risk of unsustainable tourism [17]. Some studies have highlighted the significance of DSR for sustainable destination development [18,19]. Mentioning stakeholders in research on the perception of DSR, many authors have studied DSR from the viewpoint of residents’ perspectives [19,20] and some other stakeholders [21,22]. The most common study of this kind examines the perception of DSR from the perspective of tourists [23,24]. In cognitive behavioral theories, perception is also mentioned as a prerequisite for creating beliefs and emotions, leading to behavior [25]. This study discusses how DSR practices can enhance tourist destination recognition. DSR includes a variety of plans on the part of DMOs to preserve the environment, increase the local economy, or safeguard the interests of tourists. In contrast, tourists may share social value standards and ethical perspectives in DSR activities based on the compatibility of individual and destination values. Thus, the following is hypothesized:
H1: 
The perception of destination social responsibility will have a direct and positive influence on the environmentally responsible behavior of tourists.
DSR is a factor that can influence significant aspects of destination development. Based on stakeholder theory [26], well-practiced DSR improves local tourism and increases perceived value for tourists, thereby increasing satisfaction with the destination. Not only is it that DSR initiatives can anticipate tourists’ interests, it is also evident that when tourists are satisfied with the destination, it will lead to behavioral changes [27]. Specifically, when tourists are satisfied with their trip experiences, they are more likely to promote eco-conservative behavior [28]. In addition, engaging in socially responsible actions is a great way to build and maintain a good reputation. In one sense, tourists are the beneficiaries of the destination’s marketing initiatives. Therefore, tourists will be motivated to contribute to the destination if they have a favorable opinion of the location’s reputation due to DMO contributions. Furthermore, DSR programs typically encompass a range of strategies and activities aimed at safeguarding the environment, enhancing societal well-being, boosting the local economy, and preserving the rights of tourists. Given that tourists are integral members of society, they often align with the shared social values and ethical principles outlined in DSR initiatives [29]. Thus, the following is suggested:
H2: 
The perception of destination social responsibility will have a direct and positive influence on destination reputation.
H3: 
The perception of destination social responsibility will have a direct and positive influence on destination identification.
H4: 
The perception of the destination social responsibility will have a direct and positive influence on destination satisfaction.

2.3. Destination Reputation, Destination Identification, and Destination Satisfaction Are Organisms (O)

Underlying the organism reaction, a organism is regarded as the internal affective and cognitive process of an organism. In this paper, destination reputation, destination identification, and destination satisfaction are mentioned as the organisms in the S-O-R framework. They are considered in the interaction relationship. In terms of tourism marketing, reputation promotes competitiveness and becomes advantageous to the sustainable growth of destinations [30]. In the field of tourism, the positive impact of DR on DI in the proposed model is predicated on broadening and building theories of positive psychology. The theory holds that positive emotions (such as happiness and interest) can expand awareness and build sustainable personal resources (including social, psychophysiological, and intellectual) to promote individual thoughts and actions [31]. According to this theory, a destination with a positive reputation is thought to enhance an individual’s psychological resources. Thus, the following is hypothesized:
H5: 
Destination reputation will have a direct and positive influence on destination identification.
In the marketing literature, customer satisfaction is how customers identify products [32]. In tourist destinations, DS pertains to the overall sensations that an individual encounters while visiting a destination, both during and after their stay [33]. Satisfaction is an essential factor that leads to organizational identification [34]. As McCall and Simmons [35] maintain, positive feelings affirming identity are important for developing and maintaining those identities. Satisfaction can lead to a reassessment of identity prominence, in which positive feelings and emotions are the basis for forming, maintaining, and developing identity [36]. Tourists who are satisfied with positive experiences at a destination can strengthen a deep bond and sense of belonging to the destination [37]. Therefore, they will associate their identity with the destination [38]. Based on the mentioned discussion, we provide the following hypothesis:
H6: 
Destination satisfaction will have a direct and positive influence on destination identification.

2.4. Environmentally Responsible Behavior as a Response (R)

Many tourism activities rely on a destination’s natural resources. Therefore, environmental issues must be addressed. ERB has been widely recognized and used in the literature on sustainable tourism, concentrating on individuals’ affirmative attitudes with the aim of fostering a more sustainable touristic milieu by safeguarding the natural environment [39]. Environmentally responsible behavior is associated with individual awareness, attitudes, and a sense of responsibility [40]. According to Lee et al. [41], tourists exhibit environmentally responsible behavior when they make efforts to reduce potentially negative environmental consequences and commit themselves to environmental preservation during their tourism experience. In this article, ERB is manifested through direct and indirect promotion, not only from DSR (S), but also from DI, DR, and DS (O). In terms of the direct effect of DR, appraisal theory states that an individual’s perceptions may affect behavioral responses. Specifically, it regulates the process by which information influences an individual’s perceptions, which then influence their behavioral responses [42]. According to this theoretical framework, one might posit that the perceived reputation of a destination has a significant impact on the travel behavior of tourists. Additionally, the influence satisfaction on tourists’ ERB manifests in several manners. Wang and Kang [43] specified that tourists’ satisfaction will influence their interest in participating in pro-environmental behavior. As for the direct impact from DI, it can encourage tourists’ supportive behaviors that benefit the destination [44]. It has been proposed that tourists should seek destinations that align with their sense of self [45]. Based on the above discussion, the following hypotheses are posited:
H7: 
Destination reputation will have a direct and positive influence on the environmentally responsible behavior of tourists.
H8: 
Destination satisfaction will have a direct and positive influence on the environmentally responsible behavior of tourists.
H9: 
Destination identification will have a direct and positive influence on the environmentally responsible behavior of tourists.

2.5. The Mediating Effects of Destination Reputation, Destination Identification, and Destination Satisfaction

The S-O-R model indicates that an organism can mediate the effects of the stimulus on response [14]. Reputation and competition are proven to mediate the relationship between the perception of DSR and ERB [46,47]. Scholars suggest that destination reputation may be understood within the framework of corporate reputation. It is characterized as the extent to which visitors trust and have a positive opinion of a destination, which is determined by their prior assessments of the destination, including their perspectives and behaviors. This research posits that DSR acts as an external stimulus. Initially, this agent exerts an influence on the tourist’s internal psychological state, determined by the concept of DR. Subsequently, this influence extends to a variety of actions, including supporting and feedback behaviors. Thus, we propose the following:
H10: 
Destination reputation plays a mediating role that positively affects the relationship between the perception of destination social responsibility and the environmentally responsible behavior of tourists.
According to social identity theory, identification is a person’s perception of belonging to a particular group. With the emergence of this theory, researchers in the field of management have paid close attention to the concept of identity. DI is believed to be a contributing factor in promoting tourists’ attachment to destinations, thereby creating ERB in tourists [6,12,48]. It can be suggested that tourists would regard places that actively fulfilled their social commitments in the same manner as they regard organizations that actively performed their social responsibilities and created a feeling of engagement. Thus, the following is hypothesized:
H11: 
Destination identification plays a mediating role that positively affects the relationship between the perception of destination social responsibility and the environmentally responsible behavior of tourists.
Using stakeholder theory, DSR not only enhances local tourism, but also raises the perceived value for tourists, boosting their satisfaction with the area. Simultaneously, visitors are delighted with the place, which leads to behavioral changes [27], especially in terms of their involvement in promoting environmentally friendly behavior [28]. Prior studies have demonstrated that DS moderates the association between DSR and ERB [19,49]. Thus, the following is hypothesized:
H12: 
Destination satisfaction plays a mediating role that positively affects the relationship between the perception of destination social responsibility and the environmentally responsible behavior of tourists.

3. Methodology

3.1. Research Space

The data were gathered between January 2023 and May 2023. This study employed quantitative research methods and was conducted online and on-site. Pages and groups relevant to Phu Quoc tourism on social media sites (Facebook, Instagram et al.) were employed to distribute the questionnaires for the online form. Especially for the social network Instagram, hashtags such as #PhuQuoc, #dulichPhuQuoc, #PhuQuocVietNam, and #HondaongocPhuQuoc are used to access tourist articles and photos. Accordingly, the questionnaire was sent directly to tourists who had checked into Phu Quoc. After that, they answered a screening question to select quality observations. To supplement the process of distributing questionnaires via the online form, the offline form sends questionnaires directly to tourists at Phu Quoc attractions. To conclude, 371 responses were recorded.

3.2. Data Collection

The results were used to collect five synthetic measurement scales from research articles. From the studies of Lee et al. [50] and Wang et al. [43], Zhang et al. [47] synthesized the perception of DSR (six items). Su and Swanson [18] redesigned the organizational identity scale of Mael and Ashforth [51], and Keh and Xie [9] and So et al. [52] used it in the context of tourist destinations. Brown et al. [53] developed DS (three items). Artigas [54] developed DR (four items). For the scale of ERB (six items), Su and Swanson [18] adjusted the methods of Smith et al. [55] and Thapa [56]. Each of the mentioned variables was evaluated using a five-point Likert scale.

3.3. Data Analysis

This study employed principal component analysis as a method. A partial least-squares analysis was utilized to evaluate the proposed model. The data underwent processing using the SmartPLS version 4.0 statistical software, which is adept at handling intricate research models with multiple intermediary, latent, and observable variables, particularly structural models [57].

4. Empirical Results

4.1. Descriptive Statistics

The findings indicated that slightly more respondents were female (51.8%). The age group with the most significant proportion of respondents was between 18 and 28 years. Referring to the tourism characteristics of tourists in Phu Quoc, first-time tourists accounted for 39.6%, while 32.6% had visited three or more times. Regarding travel expenses, tourists with different occupations showed a difference in spending for their trip to Phu Quoc. In particular, tourists spending from VND 4 million to VND 6 million accounted for the highest proportion at 25.1%. This might be because most tourists who took part in the poll are students, with an average spending level of 48.8%. More complete sample characteristics are provided in Table 1.

4.2. Assessment of the Measurement Model

The study underwent two rounds of quality control for each observed variable. The first test results show that the outer loading of the observed variables ranges from 0.589 to 0.958. Two observed variables on the DR scale (DR4, DR5) do not meet the requirements of Hair et al. [58], with an outer loading of 0.589 and 0.680, respectively. Accordingly, the study proceeds to remove these two poor-quality observed variables. The removal of the observed variable is based on the significance of the data contribution and its content. From Table 2, all of the remaining observed variables have a high quality, with outer loading coefficients of 0.7 or higher, ranging from 0.745 to 0.958.
The remaining items displayed appropriate reliability, internal consistency, convergent validity, and discriminant validity indicators. Two factors have verified the individual indicator’s dependability: First, the standard factor loadings of each item were higher than 0.7, even exceeding 0.8. Second, they were all statistically significant, with p values below 0.001. All metrics of Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability were more significant than 0.70, demonstrating that the internal consistency reliability was also positive. Both indicators of reliability have a level of 0.6, which is above the acceptable level [59], indicating that the reliability of this study is adequate.
All AVE values were greater than 0.5, indicating convergent validity [60], and they were between the range of 0.590 and 0.889. Two criteria were employed to assess discriminant validity. First, the Fornell and Larcker [61] criterion requires the square roots of the AVE to be higher than the strongest correlation among constructs. Second, the Heterotrait–Monotrait Ratio (HTMT) criterion demands values below 1 [62]. The HTMT values in this investigation were all less than 1.0, and the square root of the AVE of one structure correlated more strongly with itself than with other structures. It can be concluded that the measurement scales of the concepts achieve discriminant validity. Table 3 shows the detailed test results for the parameters.

4.3. Assessment of the Structural Model and Hypothesis Testing

This study examined a structural model for the hypotheses by bootstrapping 5000 sub-samples [58]. The predictive relevance (R2) and predictive power (Q2) before bootstrapping were calculated. If the R2 value is 0.5, it indicates a medium effect; 0.25 or less means a weak effect [63]. The R2 values in the present study indicate that the independent variables have a negligible effect on the dependent variables. The R2 value of ERB is 0.453, meaning that about 45.3% of the variance in DR was explained by the research model. The R2 values of DS, DR, and DI are 0.298, 0.105, and 0.064, respectively.
Prediction power analysis is a technique for calculating the predictive ability of a model using the Q2 (blindfolding) method. Tenenhaus et al. [64] stated that Q2 is considered as an index to evaluate the overall quality of the component model. As a result, if all component models have Q2 values greater than zero, the overall structural model of the study also has quality. As a result of the analyses, the Q2 values of the four endogenous variables are significantly higher than 0. Specifically, responsible tourism behavior (0.230) has the highest Q2 value, followed by destination identification (0.216), destination reputation (0.080), and destination satisfaction (0.052). In general, all component models have Q2 values greater than zero, indicating that the overall structural model of the study has quality. They also note that the model and endogenous variables have a predictive relationship (Table 4).

4.4. Test Results of Direct Relationships

The significance of the hypotheses in the PLS and regression analyses were evaluated using the β value. The β value represents the expected change in the dependent construct for every unit change in the independent construct(s). It was necessary to verify the significance level of the value using the T-statistics test. If this value is more significant than 1.64, 1.96, or 2.58, the study concludes that the hypothesis is supported at 90%, 95%, or 99% probability. Likewise, a value less than or equal to 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
The data provided in Table 5 and Figure 1 confirmed the validity of all hypotheses. Specifically, the path coefficient (β = 0.248, t = 4.935, p < 0.05) is meaningful. Hence, H1 is supported, indicating that DSR positively affects ERB. The findings revealed that DSR is related to DR (β = 0.323, t = 5.594, p < 0.005), DI (β = 0.168, t = 3.258, p < 0.005), and DS (β = 0.254, t = 3.364, p < 0.005). Therefore, hypotheses H2, H3, and H4 are supported. Hypotheses H5 and H6 are also supported. They prove that DI is positively effected by DR (β = 0.289, t = 6.079 > 1.96, p < 0.005) and DS (β = 0.303; t = 6.833, p < 0.005). Moreover, the results confirm the hypotheses relating DR (β = 0.192; t = 4.234; p < 0.005), DI (β = 0.338; t = 7.424; p < 0.005), and DS (β = 0.155; t = 3.375; p < 0.005) to ERB. As a result, all three of the hypotheses, H7, H8, and H9, are supported.

4.5. Test Results of Indirect Relationships

In the proposed structural model, there are effects from intermediate variables. The determination of intermediate effects is considered at the same time. Hair et al. [65] identified three types of mediating effects, including complementary mediation, competitive mediation, and indirect-only mediation.
Table 6 briefly displays the results of all mediation effects. Hypotheses H10, H11, and H12 are all accepted. Specifically, DR (β = 0.248, t = 4.935, p < 0.005), DI (β = 0.057, t = 3.147, p < 0.005), and DS (β = 0.039, t = 2.155, p < 0.005) all play an intermediary role in the relationship between the perception of DSR and ERB.

5. Discussion and Implications

This study aims to investigate the impact of the perceived effectiveness of DSR on ERB among tourists. The study also investigates the mediating role of DI, DS, and DR factors in the relationship between DSR and ERB. The result affirm that achieving sustainable development in Phu Quoc is driven by the responsible behavior of DMOs and the supportive participation of tourists who act together for the sustainable development of the destination. Furthermore, DSR implies appreciation for stakeholders’ interests. Individuals and groups, according to stakeholder theory [26], can affect an organization. As applied to the current research, DSR is a significant aspect of stakeholder relationships. DMOs are proven to have an impact on tourists. Specifically, when tourists have a good perception of the effectiveness of social responsibility practices, it will increase their awareness and positively influence their tourism behavior. This result affirms that DMOs in Phu Quoc need to strengthen the effective implementation of social responsibility at the destination in various forms of practice in order to strengthen the optimistic view of tourists, because behavior influenced by emotions is closely related to cognitive stimuli [66]. Therefore, the connection between stakeholders (DMOs and tourists) is established more closely.
The results point out that the efficacy of DSR attempts by DMOs relates to enhanced tourist satisfaction, thus encouraging ERB. Tourists increasingly assert their self-worth through tourism products, particularly in the high-end tourist category, where product quality is critical. DMOs that demonstrate a high level of social responsibility assist travelers in understanding the worth of destination management activities, while also providing better visualizations of the value of tourism products. Visitors would be happy with the intangible characteristics supplied, motivating them to become responsible tourists. This research further proves that DR moderates the relationship between DSR and ERB. Keh and Xie [9] indicate that a positive reputation may be established and maintained through socially responsible actions. Tourists are the target audience for the destination’s marketing initiatives; as a result, if they have a favorable opinion of the destination’s reputation due to the importance of contributions made to the community by DMOs, it will encourage tourists to contribute to Phu Quoc.
The social responsibility activities of DMOs were also shown to influence the identification of Phu Quoc tourism as positive, thereby promoting ERB. In line with social attachment theory and stakeholder theory, when tourists feel a similarity with the sustainable development values of DMOs, this motivates them to promote responsible tourism behavior. This study shows that because DMOs focus on social responsibility through sustainable tourism products and services, tourists empathize with the values that DMOs build, giving them a deep identity and affection for the destination. The process of finding and feeling emotional similarity and attachment motivates them to travel more responsibly.
Based on social identity theory, this study hypothesized that tourists would form ties with highly esteemed destinations. Tourists are more likely to identify with a destination if they have positive cognitive associations with it, facilitating their self-definition and satisfying their need for individuality. Specifically, a positive reputation would communicate an entity’s identity and attractiveness. Thus, a psychological connection to the destination might positively affect tourist behavior. As a form of self-expression, the tourist expresses support for a destination by identifying with it. In addition, when experiencing the destination, tourists are satisfied with the services and tourism products, creating positive emotions and fostering a deep relationship and a sense of belonging between tourists and the destination [37]. Therefore, this study also proves that DS and DR influence DI.
This paper has made valuable contributions to both theoretical and practical implications. Theoretically, this research provides a scientific basis for enriching the research literature regarding the influence of cognition and perception on behavior. In addition, this study strengthens the theoretical foundation to clarify the role of mediating forms in the relationship between human cognition and behavior when considering the direct relationship and the indirect relationship between DSR and ERB as mediated by DS, DI, and DR. Along with that is the interaction between the mediating factors. Also, applying theories of this kind to determine tourist behavior psychology will contribute to the diversification of theories of tourist behavior.
Regarding practical implications, this study contributes to directing more attention to the quality tourism development process at Phu Quoc, a key tourist destination in Vietnam and Southeast Asia. In addition, this study is a reference document for evaluating the effectiveness of the DSR practices of DMOs from the perspective of tourists after experiencing tourism in Phu Quoc. In addition, tourists’ feelings about the destination (DS, DR, and DI) are the basis for Phu Quoc tourism to promote its strengths and overcome shortcomings, contributing to improving its quality. The research on the efficacy of DSR practice as perceived by tourists emphasizes the contribution of tourists to the sustainable development of tourism in Phu Quoc.
In conclusion, this research provides theoretical and practical insights which expand our understanding of destination social responsibility and underscores the significance of destination social responsibility in fostering sustainable tourism. The outcomes validate the suggested model as a robust theoretical structure for delineating how a goal can motivate tourists towards environmentally friendly practices. Furthermore, the findings offer strategic advice for DMOs on leveraging tourism assets sustainably by considering tourists as stakeholders and their views as critical to the reputation of any destination.

6. Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research

This research may have at least two limits. First, this study used a convenient sample of tourists easily identified by approaching them at Phu Quoc attractions, and thus the findings may be limited in generalizability, as the sample is biased towards the younger generation. Future studies may consider more generalizable random sampling techniques and expand the scope of research to include international tourists alongside domestic tourists because the issues of social responsibility and the environment are relevant to destinations worldwide. Future researchers can also compare the impact of destination social responsibility on environmentally responsible behavior among different tourist sending constituencies to provide more specific solutions for each tourist source. Secondly, this research has not intensively exploited data related to demographics, tourism characteristics, or more general views of tourists on responsible tourism. Future studies may explore additional perspectives on tourism and tourists such as those by mediators and regulators whose views on social responsibility and the environment might broaden the research problem. As with any such study, the sample size of a project of this type by necessity cannot represent the characteristics of whole complex populations.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, Y.N.; Methodology, H.M.N.; Software, H.M.N.; Investigation, H.M.N. and Y.N.; Writing—original draft, Y.N.; Writing—review & editing, H.M.N. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

Data are contained within the article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors have no conflict of interest to declare.

References

  1. Byrd, E.T.; Bosley, H.E.; Dronberger, M.G. Comparisons of stakeholder perceptions of tourism impacts in rural eastern North Carolina. Tour. Manag. 2009, 30, 693–703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Kornilaki, M.; Font, X. Normative influences: How socio-cultural and industrial norms influence the adoption of sustainability practices. A grounded theory of Cretan, small tourism firms. J. Environ. Manag. 2019, 230, 183–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Su, L.; Lian, Q.; Huang, Y. How do tourists’ attribution of destination social responsibility motives impact trust and intention to visit? The moderating role of destination reputation. Tour. Manag. 2020, 77, 103970. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Mihalič, T. Sustainable-responsible tourism discourse—Towards “responsustable” tourism. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 111, 461–470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Kimura, T.; Chou, L.M.; Huang, D.; Tun, K.; Goh, E. Status and Trends of East Asian Coral Reefs: 1983–2019; National University of Singapore: Singapore, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  6. Van Thang, N.; Trang, P.T.T. Promote agro—Ecotourism in the context of responding to the impacts of climate change. J. Environ. 2021, 4, 22–25. [Google Scholar]
  7. Darwish, A. Managing Tourism Destination Reputation in the Era of Online Marketing: A Case Study of Egypt. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Bedfordshire, Bedfordshire, UK, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  8. Tussyadiah, I.; Fesenmaier, D. Mediating Tourist Experiences. Access to Places via Shared Videos. Ann. Tour. Res. 2008, 36, 24–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Keh, H.T.; Xie, Y. Corporate reputation and customer behavioral intentions: The roles of trust, identification and commitment. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2009, 38, 732–742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Choo, H.; Park, S.Y.; Petrick, J.F. The influence of the resident’s identification with a tourism destination brand on their behavior. J. Hosp. Mark. Manag. 2011, 20, 198–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Amani, D.; Chao, E. Social media usage and behavioural support towards destination branding: The mediating role of destination identification: The study of Tanzania tourist destination. J. Co-Oper. Bus. Stud. 2021, 6, 56–68. [Google Scholar]
  12. Khanh, N.T.; Le Phong, C. Impact of environmental belief and nature-based destination image on ecotourism attitude. J. Hosp. Tour. Insights 2020, 3, 489–505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Gnoth, J.; Andreu, L.; Kozak, M. Advances in tourism marketing research: Introduction to a special issue on consumer behavior in tourism destinations. Int. J. Cult. Tour. Hosp. Res. 2009, 3, 99–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Mehrabian, A.; Russell, J.A. An Approach to Environmental Psychology; The MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1974. [Google Scholar]
  15. Jacoby, J. Stimulus-organism-response reconsidered: An evolutionary step in modeling (consumer) behavior. J. Consum. Psychol. 2002, 12, 51–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Hu, J.; Xiong, L.; Lv, X.; Pu, B. Sustainable rural tourism: Linking residents’ environmentally responsible behaviour to tourists’ green consumption. Asia Pac. J. Tour. Res. 2021, 26, 879–893. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Mihalič, T.; Mohamadi, S.; Abbasi, A.; Dávid, L.D. Mapping a sustainable and responsible tourism paradigm: A bibliometric and citation network analysis. Sustainability 2021, 13, 853. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Su, L.; Swanson, S.R. The effect of destination social responsibility on tourist environmentally responsible behavior: Compared analysis of first-time and repeat tourists. Tour. Manag. 2017, 60, 308–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Su, L.; Huang, S.S.; Pearce, J. How does destination social responsibility contribute to environmentally responsible behaviour? A destination resident perspective. J. Bus. Res. 2018, 86, 179–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Wang, S.; Wang, J.; Li, J.; Yang, F. Do motivations contribute to local residents’ engagement in pro-environmental behaviors? Resident-destination relationship and pro-environmental climate perspective. J. Sustain. Tour. 2020, 28, 834–852. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Liu, C.R.; Lin, W.R.; Wang, Y.C.; Chen, S.P. Sustainability indicators for festival tourism: A multi-stakeholder perspective. J. Qual. Assur. Hosp. Tour. 2019, 20, 296–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Xu, D.Y.; Lin, Z.Y.; Gordon, M.P.R.; Robinson, N.K.L.; Harder, M.K. Perceived key elements of a successful residential food waste sorting program in urban apartments: Stakeholder views. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 134, 362–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Han, H. Travelers’ pro-environmental behavior in a green lodging context: Converging value-belief-norm theory and the theory of planned behavior. Tour. Manag. 2015, 47, 164–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Kim, M.S.; Stepchenkova, S. Altruistic values and environmental knowledge as triggers of pro-environmental behavior among tourists. Curr. Issues Tour. 2020, 23, 1575–1580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Agapito, D.; Oom do Valle, P.; da Costa Mendes, J. The cognitive-affective-conative model of destination image: A confirmatory analysis. J. Travel Tour. Mark. 2013, 30, 471–481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Freeman, R.E. Strategic Management: A Stokcholder Approach; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1984. [Google Scholar]
  27. Orams, M.B. Towards a more desirable form of ecotourism. Tour. Manag. 1995, 16, 3–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Davis, J.L.; Le, B.; Coy, A.E. Building a model of commitment to the natural environment to predict ecological behavior and willingness to sacrifice. J. Environ. Psychol. 2011, 31, 257–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Su, L.; Swanson, S.R.; Chen, X. Reputation, subjective well-being, and environmental responsibility: The role of satisfaction and identification. J. Sustain. Tour. 2018, 26, 1344–1361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Braun, E.; Eshuis, J.; Klijn, E.H.; Zenker, S. Improving place reputation: Do an open place brand process and an identity-image match pay off? Cities 2018, 80, 22–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Fredrickson, B.L. The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. Am. Psychol. 2001, 56, 218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Bodet, G.; Bernache-Assollant, I. Consumer loyalty in sport spectatorship services: The relationships with consumer satisfaction and team identification. Psychol. Mark. 2011, 28, 781–802. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Cole, S.T.; Scott, D. Examining the mediating role of experience quality in a model of tourist experiences. J. Travel Tour. Mark. 2004, 16, 79–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Covin, T.J.; Sightler, K.W.; Kolenko, T.A.; Tudor, R.K. An investigation of post-acquisition satisfaction with the merger. J. Appl. Behav. Sci. 1996, 32, 125–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. MacCall, G.J.; Simmons, J.L. Identities and interactions: An examination of human associations in everyday life. J. The Free Press 1978, 1–288. [Google Scholar]
  36. Arnett, D.B.; German, S.D.; Hunt, S.D. The identity salience model of relationship marketing success: The case of nonprofit marketing. J. Mark. 2003, 67, 89–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Hou, J.S.; Lin, C.H.; Morais, D.B. Antecedents of attachment to a cultural tourism destination: The case of Hakka and non-Hakka Taiwanese visitors to Pei-Pu, Taiwan. J. Travel Res. 2005, 44, 221–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Hultman, M.; Skarmeas, D.; Oghazi, P.; Beheshti, H.M. Achieving tourist loyalty through destination personality, satisfaction, and identification. J. Bus. Res. 2015, 68, 2227–2231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Qiu, H.; Wang, X.; Morrison, A.M.; Kelly, C.; Wei, W. From ownership to responsibility: Extending the theory of planned behavior to predict tourist environmentally responsible behavioral intentions. J. Sustain. Tour. 2022, 19, 1–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Varela-Candamio, L.; Novo-Corti, I.; García-Álvarez, M.T. The importance of environmental education in the determinants of green behavior: A meta-analysis approach. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 170, 1565–1578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Lee, Y.K.; Lee, K.H.; Li, D.X. The impact of CSR on relationship quality and relationship outcomes: A perspective of service employees. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2012, 31, 745–756. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Smith, C.A.; Ellsworth, P.C. Patterns of cognitive appraisal in emotion. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1985, 48, 813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Wang, E.; Kang, N. Does life satisfaction matter for pro-environmental behavior? Empirical evidence from China General Social Survey. Qual. Quant. 2019, 53, 449–469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Cheng, J.C.; Luo, S.J.; Yen, C.H.; Yang, Y.F. Brand attachment and customer citizenship behaviors. Serv. Ind. J. 2016, 36, 263–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Ekinci, Y.; Sirakaya-Turk, E.; Preciado, S. Symbolic consumption of tourism destination brands. J. Bus. Res. 2013, 66, 711–718. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Hassan, S.B.; Soliman, M. COVID-19 and repeat visitation: Assessing the role of destination social responsibility, destination reputation, holidaymakers’ trust and fear arousal. J. Destin. Mark. Manag. 2021, 19, 100495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Zhang, H.; Cheng, Z.; Chen, X. How destination social responsibility affects tourist citizenship behavior at cultural heritage sites? Mediating roles of destination reputation and destination identification. Sustainability 2022, 14, 6772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Kim, S.; Lee, Y.-K.; Lee, C.-K. The moderating effect of place attachment on the relationship between festival quality and behavioral intentions. Asia Pac. J. Tour. Res. 2017, 22, 49–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Powell, R.B.; Ham, S.H. Can ecotourism interpretation really lead to pro-conservation knowledge, attitudes and behaviour? Evidence from the Galapagos Islands. J. Sustain. Tour. 2008, 16, 467–489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Lee, C.K.; Olya, H.; Ahmad, M.S.; Kim, K.H.; Oh, M.J. Sustainable intelligence, destination social responsibility, and pro-environmental behaviour of visitors: Evidence from an eco-tourism site. J. Hosp. Tour. Manag. 2021, 47, 365–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Mael, F.; Ashforth, B.E. Alumni and their alma mater: A partial test of the reformulated model of organizational identification. J. Organ. Behav. 1992, 13, 103–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. So, K.K.F.; King, C.; Sparks, B.A.; Wang, Y. The influence of customer brand identification on hotel brand evaluation and loyalty development. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2013, 34, 31–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Brown, S.W.; Cowles, D.L.; Tuten, T.L. Service recovery: Its value and limitations as a retail strategy. Int. J. Serv. Ind. Manag. 1996, 7, 32–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Artigas, E.M.; Vilches-Montero, S.; Yrigoyen, C.C. Antecedents of tourism destination reputation: The mediating role of familiarity. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2015, 26, 147–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Smith-Sebasto, N.J.; D’Costa, A. Designing a Likert-type scale to predict environmentally responsible behavior in undergraduate students: A multistep process. J. Environ. Educ. 1995, 27, 14–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Thapa, B. The mediation effect of outdoor recreation participation on environmental attitude-behavior correspondence. J. Environ. Educ. 2010, 41, 133–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Henseler, J.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2015, 43, 115–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Hair, J.F., Jr.; Sarstedt, M.; Hopkins, L.; Kuppelwieser, V.G. Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) An emerging tool in business research. Eur. Bus. Rev. 2014, 26, 106–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Hair, J.F.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. PLS-SEM: Indeed, a silver bullet. J. Mark. Theory Pract. 2011, 19, 139–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Hock, C.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. Management of multi-purpose stadiums: Importance and performance measurement of service interfaces. Int. J. Serv. Technol. Manag. 2010, 14, 188–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Mark. Res. 1981, 18, 39–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Garson, G.D. Partial Least Squares. Regression and Structural Equation Models; Statistical Associates Publishers: Hillsborough, NC, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  63. Hair, J.F.; Hult, G.T.M.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM), 1st ed.; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  64. Tenenhaus, M.; Vinzi, V.E.; Chatelin, Y.M.; Lauro, C. PLS path modeling. Comput. Stat. Data Anal. 2005, 48, 159–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Hair, J.F.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. Partial least squares structural equation modeling: Rigorous applications, better results and higher acceptance. Long Range Plan. 2013, 46, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Bagozzi, R.P.; Gopinath, M.; Nyer, P.U. The role of emotions in marketing. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 1999, 27, 184–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 15 15803 g001
Figure 1. Model construction.
Figure 1. Model construction.
Sustainability 15 15803 g001
Table 1. The demographic and tourism characteristics of the sample.
Table 1. The demographic and tourism characteristics of the sample.
n% n%
GenderNo. of previous visits
Male16343.9One14739.6
Female 19251.8Two10327.8
Other164.3Three or more 12132.6
Age groupTraveling purpose
18–2826872.2Leisure16143.4
29–398522.9Discovery5615.1
40–49164.3Business349.2
50 or older 20.5Visit friend/family297.8
OccupationResearch/study9024.3
Students18148.8Other10.3
Office staff11631.3Travel expenses (VND)
Governmental officers4211.3Below 4 Mil8222.1
Other328.64 Mil–below 6 Mil9325.1
6 Mil–below 8 Mil5715.4
8 Mil–below10 Mil8522.9
10 Mil or above5414.6
Note: Exchange rate is approximately 23.000 VND/USD.
Table 2. Results of descriptive statistics, validity, and reliability.
Table 2. Results of descriptive statistics, validity, and reliability.
VariablesMeanSDLoadingAVECACR
Destination social responsibility4.120.532 0.6280.8820.886
I think Phu Quoc is dedicated to giving back to the local community. 0.839 ***
I think Phu Quoc drives local economic development. 0.778 ***
I think Phu Quoc is committed to improving social well-being. 0.774 ***
I think Phu Quoc provides a good experience for visitors by establishing connections with the local people and culture. 0.745 ***
I think Phu Quoc is actively concerned about the environment. 0.784 ***
I think Phu Quoc is committed to preserving local cultural heritage resources. 0.831 ***
Destination reputation3.730.675 0.7690.8450.857
Phu Quoc has a very good reputation. 0.762 ***
Phu Quoc has a better reputation than other similar places. 0.941 ***
People respect Phu Quoc highly. 0.917 ***
Destination identification3.750.729 0.7460.8860.888
I am very interested in what others think about Phu Quoc. 0.857 ***
The successes of Phu Quoc are my successes. 0.887 ***
When someone praises Phu Quoc, it feels like a personal compliment. 0.857 ***
When someone criticizes Phu Quoc, I would feel embarrassed. 0.853 ***
Destination satisfaction4.110.622 0.8890.9370.940
Overall, I was satisfied with my visit to Phu Quoc. 0.918 ***
Compared to my expectations, I was satisfied with my visit to Phu Quoc. 0.958 ***
Compared to an ideal situation, I was satisfied with my visit to Phu Quoc. 0.951 ***
Environmentally responsible behavior4.10.661 0.5900.8610.863
I comply with the rules so as to not harm Phu Quoc’s environment. 0.745 ***
I report to the appropriate destination administration any environmental pollution or destruction at Phu Quoc. 0.782 ***
When I see garbage and debris at Phu Quoc, I put it in the trash. 0.749 ***
If there are environment improvement activities at Phu Quoc, I am willing to attend. 0.803 ***
I try to convince others to protect the natural environment at Phu Quoc. 0.780 ***
I try not to disrupt the fauna and/or flora when visiting Phu Quoc. 0.748 ***
Note: CA = Cronbach’s alpha, CR = composite reliability, AVE = average variance extracted. *** Significant at the 0.00 level.
Table 3. Results of discriminant validity.
Table 3. Results of discriminant validity.
Heterotrait–MonotraitFornell–Larcker
DIDRDSDSRERBDIDRDSDSRERB
DI_ 0.864
DR0.472 0.4070.877
DS0.4460.239 0.4070.2130.943
DSR0.3780.3680.277 0.3380.3250.2540.792
ERB0.6410.5190.4420.525_0.5670.4440.3940.4580.768
Note: The diagonal values indicate the square root of the average value across all constructs (Fornell–Larcker).
Table 4. Test results of the model’s predictive relevance and power.
Table 4. Test results of the model’s predictive relevance and power.
Predictive RelevancePredictive Power
VariablesR2R2 AdjustedSSOSSEQ2 (=1 − SSE/SSO)
DI0.2980.2921484.0001163.5370.216
DR0.1050.1021113.0001024.1470.080
DS0.0640.0621113.0001055.5100.052
ERB0.4530.4472226.0002226.0000.230
Table 5. Path coefficients.
Table 5. Path coefficients.
HypothesesPathsβSDT-ValuesConclusion
H1DSR => ERB0.2480.0504.935 ***Supported
H2DSR => DR0.3230.0585.594 ***Supported
H3DSR => DI0.1680.0523.258 **Supported
H4DSR => DS0.2540.0753.364 **Supported
H5DR => DI0.2890.0476.079 ***Supported
H6DS => DI0.3030.0446.833 ***Supported
H7DR => ERB0.1920.0454.234 ***Supported
H8DI => ERB0.3380.0467.424 ***Supported
H9DS => ERB0.1550.0463.375 **Supported
Note: ** p < 0.05; *** p < 0.001.
Table 6. Specific indirect effects.
Table 6. Specific indirect effects.
HypothesisPathsβSDT-ValuesResultsConclusion
H10DSR => ERB0.2480.0504.935 ***Complementary mediationSupported
DSR => DR => ERB0.0620.0183.377 **
H11DSR => ERB0.2480.0504.935 ***Complementary mediationSupported
DSR => DI => ERB0.0570.0183.147 **
H12DSR => ERB0.2480.0504.935 ***Complementary mediationSupported
DSR => DS => ERB0.0390.0182.155 **
Note: ** p < 0.05. *** p < 0.01.
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.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Nguyen, H.M.; Nguyen, Y. Do Perceptions of Destination Social Responsibility Contribute to Environmentally Responsible Behavior? A Case Study in Phu Quoc, Vietnam. Sustainability 2023, 15, 15803. https://doi.org/10.3390/su152215803

AMA Style

Nguyen HM, Nguyen Y. Do Perceptions of Destination Social Responsibility Contribute to Environmentally Responsible Behavior? A Case Study in Phu Quoc, Vietnam. Sustainability. 2023; 15(22):15803. https://doi.org/10.3390/su152215803

Chicago/Turabian Style

Nguyen, Huan Minh, and Yen Nguyen. 2023. "Do Perceptions of Destination Social Responsibility Contribute to Environmentally Responsible Behavior? A Case Study in Phu Quoc, Vietnam" Sustainability 15, no. 22: 15803. https://doi.org/10.3390/su152215803

APA Style

Nguyen, H. M., & Nguyen, Y. (2023). Do Perceptions of Destination Social Responsibility Contribute to Environmentally Responsible Behavior? A Case Study in Phu Quoc, Vietnam. Sustainability, 15(22), 15803. https://doi.org/10.3390/su152215803

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop