Fostering Environmental Behaviors Through

Journal of Sustainable Tourism
ISSN: 0966-9582 (Print) 1747-7646 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rsus20
Fostering environmental behaviors through

observational learning
Benjamin A. B. Morse, Jennifer P. Carman & Michaela T. Zint
To cite this article: Benjamin A. B. Morse, Jennifer P. Carman & Michaela T. Zint (2019): Fostering
environmental behaviors through observational learning, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, DOI:
10.1080/09669582.2019.1647219
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2019.1647219
Published online: 08 Aug 2019.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 6
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rsus20
JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE TOURISM
https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2019.1647219
Fostering environmental behaviors through

observational learning
Benjamin A. B. Morsea , Jennifer P. Carmana and Michaela T. Zinta,b,c
a
School for Environment and Sustainability, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA; bCollege of
Literature, Science, and the Arts, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA; cSchool of Education,
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

This study applied and operationalized Bandura’s (1977, 1986) four-step Received 29 June 2017
observational learning process (i.e., attention, retention, production, and Revised 10 July 2019
motivation) to investigate how tour-guides, peer ecotourists, and local Accepted 17 July 2019
community members influenced a convenience sample of South Korean
KEY WORDS
ecotourists’ environmentally responsible behavioral (ERB) intentions. Ecotourism; environmentally
Questionnaires were administered immediately after an ecotourism responsible behaviors;
experience (n ¼ 207). Path analysis results largely supported a hypothe- observational learning; path
sized Ecotourist Observational Learning Model and predicted ecotou- analysis; social learning
rists’ ERB intentions moderately well. Production (i.e., opportunities to theory; South Korea
engage in modeled ERBs) and motivation (i.e., positive reinforcement for
engaging in these ERBs) predicted participants’ ERB intentions.
Production was predicted by retention (i.e., observation of tour-guides
and peer ecotourists’ modeled ERBs), which was, in turn, predicted by
attention (i.e., physical, verbal and cognitive engagement). The findings
indicate that Bandura’s (1986) four-step observational learning process
helps explain how ecotourists develop ERB intentions. The implications
of the study indicate that tour-guides should model ERBs for partici-
pants, encourage participants to model ERBs for each other, provide
opportunities for participants to engage in ERBs, and provide them with
positive feedback for doing so. Others who seek to understand the
processes underlying ecotourists’ ERBs during and after their experien-
ces are encouraged to further test and build on the Ecotourist
Observational Learning Model.
Introduction
As ecotourism continues to grow, there is mounting interest in the relationship between eco-
tourism participation and ecotourists’ environmentally responsible behavior (ERB). There are two
main reasons for this interest. For one, there is a desire for participants to engage in ERBs during
their ecotourism experience, to minimize negative environmental effects on sensitive natural
areas (e.g., Boo, 1990; French et al., 2017; Shannon, Larson, Reed, Crooks, & Angeloni, 2017;
Stephenson, 1993; Wearing & Neil, 2009). Moreover, in countries across the world, like South
Korea where this study was conducted, there is a desire for ecotourism to foster longer term
ERBs, to help address environmental challenges (Choi, Doh, Park, & Chon, 2017; Kim & Park,
2017; Lee, Lawton, & Weaver, 2012). The ecotourism industry has responded accordingly. It has
CONTACT Benjamin A. B. Morse babmorse@umich.edu

ß 2019 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 B. A. B. MORSE ET AL.
recognized the rising demand for more environmentally responsible tourism experiences, and
operators are actively seeking strategies, including ways to promote ERBs, to reduce negative
impacts on ecotourism sites and contribute to achieving environmental goals (Center for
Responsible Travel [CREST], 2017).
A relatively recent review of research on ecotourism outcomes showed that participation
in ecotourism can predict intentions to engage in ERB as well as subsequent, actual ERB after
the experience (Ardoin, Wheaton, Bowers, Hunt, & Durham, 2015). Existing studies have not
only focused on the extent to which ecotourism may foster ERB but also to what features of
ecotourism this relationship can be attributed to. Collectively, this body of research suggests
that high-quality educational and interpretive programming, opportunities to engage in ERB
during the ecotourism experience, and social influences are among the key predictors of eco-
tourism outcomes including ERB (Ardoin et al., 2015). The authors of the review point out,
however, that ecotourism research has not focused on identifying the underlying processes
that bring about outcomes like ERB and that such studies are needed to inform ecotour-
ism practice.
Until very recently, there were no South Korean studies investigating the relationship between
ecotourism participation and ERB intentions or ERB, despite being of interest to the country’s
ecotourism scholars (Do, Kim, Kim, & Joo, 2015; Kim & Park, 2017; Lee, Jan, & Yang, 2013) and
professionals (CREST, 2017). The two studies, published since we completed our study, examined
select antecedents and consequences of ecotourism on ERB (Hwang & Lee, 2018) and the influ-
ence of cognitive and affective antecedents on this outcome (Kim, Kim, & Thapa, 2018). Hwang
and Lee (2018) found that ecotourists’ beliefs about humans’ relationship with nature, as well as
willingness to pay for ecotourism services, predicted ERB. Similarly, Kim et al. (2018) found that
ecotourists’ enduring feelings toward nature as well as their cognitive, other affective, and phys-
ical relationships with nature, predicted ERB. As such, both studies make additional valuable con-
tributions to research on the link between ecotourism and ERB and the factors that explain why
this relationship exists. Neither, however, focused on the processes the lead ecotourists to
engage in ERB during or after the experience. Moreover, South Korea’s ecotourism sector has
developed similarly to its Western counterpart (Lee et al., 2013), however, the rationale for using
ecotourism as a means of sustainable development vary based on culture. For example, Lee
et al. (2013) suggest that ecotourism experiences reflect unity between humans and nature, a
sentiment that stems from Confucian, Zen Buddhist, and Taoist philosophies and function as an
experiential classroom with the main focus of learning. Since learning processes have not yet
been applied to explain the relationship between ecotourism and ERB, it seemed particularly
appropriate to first attempt to do so within the South Korean education-focused cul-
tural context.
Bandura’s (1977, 1986) research on the influence of social learning through observation struck
us as particularly appropriate for helping to explain what processes may explain why Ardoin
et al. (2015) found that high-quality educational or interpretation programming, opportunities to
engage in ERB during the experience, and social influences were among the key features of eco-
tourism linked to ERB. As will be explained in greater detail, Bandura’s (1986) four-step observa-
tional learning process, in particular, offers a theoretical explanation for why and how these
features play the role they do in predicting ERB. Notably, different elements of his social learning
theory have also been successfully applied across different cultural settings (Bandura, 1977) as
well as to understand how new behaviors are learned in a variety of domains including entrepre-
neurship, mass communication, leadership, athletics, and healthcare (Bandura, 2009; Brown,
Trevin~o, & Harrison, 2005; Connolly, 2017; Lenka & Agarwal, 2015; Rosenstock, Strecher, & Becker,
1988). Because of South Korea’s dedication to both ecotourism and education, this country struck
us as particularly appropriate for conducting a study exploring how social learning processes
lead to ecotourists’ ERB.
JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE TOURISM 3
Ecotourism in South Korea

Consistent with the largely Western literature on the topic (Cater, 2006), we define ecotourism as
travel to a predominantly nature-based destination that emphasizes appreciation of a natural or
cultural resource, environmental education, and enjoyment, in a manner that promotes eco-
logical, socio-cultural and economic sustainability (Bjork, 2000; ; Buckley, 2009; Powell & Ham,
2008; Weaver, 2002). This definition aligns with the three core Western principles of ecotourism:
that it be nature-based, education-focused and sustainability-oriented (Blamey, 2001; Lee et al.,
2013; Weaver, 2002; Weaver & Lawton, 2007).
We acknowledge, however, that ecotourism may take on many different forms across cultures,
perspectives, and geographic locations (Conway & Cawley, 2016). For example, South Korea, simi-
lar to other East Asian countries that promote ecotourism, may accept or celebrate large-scale
development and drastic physical land alterations (Buckley, Cater, Linsheng, & Chen, 2008; Lee
et al., 2013). This diverges from Western ecotourism ethics, which would likely exclude similar
changes and view them as inappropriate (Buckley et al., 2008).
Moreover while South Korea’s ecotourism has adopted the same three core ecotourism princi-
ples as its Western counterpart, the reasons for this choice vary based on culture. For one, Lee
et al. (2013) suggest that nature-based tourism attractions reflect unity between humans and the
environment, a sentiment that stems from Confucian, Zen Buddhist, and Taoist philosophies. Xu,
Cui, Sofield, and Li (2014) emphasize collectivist approaches to ecotourism, where humans and
nature are unified, rather than in direct conflict. The second, learning-based principle of ecotour-
ism is grounded in Confucianism and Taoism. As part of both, learning and developing expertise
to improve or develop something plays a central role. The importance of this idea is reflected in
the central role that education has played in South Korea’s development. The third, sustainabil-
ity-oriented principle of ecotourism relates to the Confucian idea of “creative transformation,”
which Lee et al. (2013) describe as an opportunity for human environments and physical envi-
ronments to achieve a sense of harmony. This perspective emphasizes the roles that planning
and management play in mitigating ecotourism’s negative impacts.
Consistent with the latter as well as Western perspectives (Fennell, Buckley, & Weaver, 2001;
Stein, Clark, & Rickards, 2003), South Korea views ecotourism as an approach to managing nat-
ural areas, protecting natural and cultural wonders through revenue generation, developing rural
communities, and providing valuable educational opportunities (Kim & Park, 2017; Lee et al.,
2013). South Korea’s commitment to ecotourism is evident through the resources and efforts its
Ministry of Environment (MOE) has allocated to develop ecotourism sites throughout the country
since 2001 (Kim et al., 2018; Kim & Park, 2017).
One critical way South Korean ecotourists may differ from their Western counterparts and a
key reason why we chose to conduct this study in this particular country is that South Koreans
have a very strong cultural drive to learn from their ecotourism experience. As Lee et al. (2013)
explain the goal to advance one’s knowledge and skills is at the Center of South Korean ecotou-
rists. South Korean ecotourists may also be more acutely aware of others around them (i.e., tour-
guides, peer ecotourists, or local community members) and the associated learning opportunities
that these individuals may offer. One study has shown, for example, that many South Korean
ecotourists refer to their tour-guide as “teacher” and that they value their experience more if
they are able to compete against their peers (Lee et al., 2013). Since learning processes have not
yet been explored in the context of ecotourism participation and ERBs, it seemed particularly
appropriate to start within the learning-centric culture of South Korea.
Ecotourism and environmentally responsible behavior (ERB)

ERBs are behaviors that minimize negative impacts on, and are comparatively better for, the eco-
logical environment (Bamberg & Mo €ser, 2007; Krajhanzl, 2010; Stern, 2000). Ecotourism scholars
have worked to identify to what extent ecotourism results in ERB and the features of the experi-
ence to which changes in ERB may be attributed. As a result of a comprehensive outcome-
focused review, Ardoin et al. (2015) were able to identify 30 relevant empirical studies that
explored the link between ecotourism and ERB intentions expressed immediately after these
experiences, as well as ecotourism and longer term ERBs outcomes. Of the 17 studies measuring
ERB intentions, two reported no changes, six studies positive changes, and nine partially positive
changes. Of the 10 studies that measured actual ERBs, none reported positive outcomes across
all measured items or times, but seven studies showed partially positive findings. This review
also thematically categorized features of ecotourism experiences that studies have linked to
ERBs. These include high-quality educational or interpretation programming, opportunities for
actions during the experience, and social influences (Ardoin et al., 2015).
The quality of participants’ educational or interpretation experience is a feature that has a par-
ticularly solid relationship with ecotourism outcomes, including ERB (Ardoin et al., 2015). The
authors summarized the powerful role of interpretation in the following way:
Attending to broader social contexts of NBT experiences is also essential in designing tourism that
encourages desired shifts in attitudes and behaviors. Eleven studies reviewed here highlight interpretation’s
direct contribution to positive changes in knowledge, attitudes, and behavior. Given that this was the most
supported aspect of the effective NBT experience in our review, the findings emphasize the critical role of
high-quality, tailored, and meaningful interpretive programming for promoting positive outcomes of the
tourism experiences. (Ardoin et al., 2015, p. 853.)
Environmental education as “a process that helps individuals, communities, and organizations

learn more about the environment, and develop skills and understanding about how to address
global challenges” (NAAEE, 2018) and environmental interpretation is “a communication process
that forges emotional and intellectual connections between the interests of the audience and
the meanings inherent in the resource” (NAI, 2018). Several studies provide more detailed
insights into what aspects of ecotourism’s educational and interpretation efforts lead to ERB.
Powell and Ham (2008), for example, found that well-designed and delivered environmental
interpretation during an ecotourism experience can increase ERB intentions including philan-
thropic support for conservation. In an experiment involving whale watchers, Jacobs and Harms
(2014) explored the effect of three types environmental interpretation (i.e., focused on know-
ledge, responsibility, or emotion) on conservation intentions when compared to a control group
with no interpretative program. Their findings suggested that conservation intentions were influ-
enced by ecotourism when tour operators shared emotional messages promoting conservation
behavior (Jacobs & Harms, 2014). While these and other related studies suggest that environ-
mental education or interpretation can increase ecotourists’ ERB intentions and actual ERBs, they
do not provide insights into the underlying processes that explain how these changes come
about (Ardoin et al., 2015).
The same is true for ERBs during ecotourism experiences. As identified by Ardoin et al. (2015)
review, a number of studies have focused on the importance of providing on-site opportunities
to engage in ERBs, to promote ERB after the ecotourism experience (Ballantyne, Packer, & Falk,
2011; Powell, Kellert, & Ham, 2009; Skibins, Powell, & Stern, 2012.) Ballantyne et al. (2011), found
that having an engaging experience or discussing new information with others, resulted in ERB
during the experience in some cases. Both Powell et al. (2009) and Skibins et al. (2012) found
that select tour-guide characteristics and environmental interpretation techniques predicted to
what extent ecotourists engaged in ERB during the experience.
Social influences during and after ecotourism experiences were specifically identified by
Ardoin et al. (2015) as warranting additional research to determine to what extent they influence
ecotourism outcomes, including ERBs. Much of this particular research focuses on the influence
of tour-guides which studies have described as information providers, teachers, mentors, enter-
tainers, pathfinders, leaders, mediators, cultural brokers, and even surrogate parents (Cohen,
1985). Existing research suggests that the characteristics of tour-guides and the quality of
Figure 1. Bandura’s (1986) adapted -Step Observational Learning Process.
environmental education and interpretation during ecotourism largely determine to what extent
participants express ERB intentions and subsequently engage in actual ERBs (Powell et al., 2009;
Powell & Ham, 2008; Skibins et al., 2012; Stern, Powell, Martin, & McLean, 2012). Because tour-
guides are the individuals who typically deliver interpretive programming during the ecotourism
experience, it can be expected that they are likely to have a strong social influence on the eco-
tourists’ ERB outcomes.
In addition to tour-guides, we expected peer ecotourists and local community members to
have social influence on participants as well. The growing trend toward community-based eco-
tourism, including in South Korea (Kim & Park, 2017), suggests that ecotourists are likely to
engage extensively with other ecotourists as well as local community members during their
experience (CREST 2017; Liu et al., 2014). To the best of our knowledge studies have not exam-
ined, the impact of these social influences on ecotourists or their ERB. While there have been
studies of how local and indigenous populations have been affected by ecotourism (Fordred &
Mearns, 2018; Masud, Aldakhil, Nassani, & Azam, 2017; Stone, 2015), we are not aware of ones
that have examined to what extent local community members affect ecotourists, in turn.
Bandura’s (1986) four-step observational learning process, a key element of Social Learning
Theory or Social Cognitive Theory (Bandura, 1977), offers one theoretical explanation of how
social influences, including through ERB modeled by tour-guides, peers, and community mem-
bers, may explain ecotourists’ subsequent ERB. Moreover, because the four-step process is part
of a learning theory and educational or interpretation experiences have been found to play a
key role in ecotourism outcomes, we decided to use this particular, versus other, behavioral
models (e.g., theory of planned behavior). Use of an educational theory is also consistent with
Ardoin et al. (2015) recommendation to study the social context influencing ecotourism out-
comes. Lastly, in addition to advancing research on the topic, we expected the application of
this particular theory to offer practical insights into improving ecotourism practice.
Observational learning
Observational learning refers to how individuals learn new behaviors by paying attention to the
behaviors of others who serve as intentional or unintentional models of these behaviors
(Bandura, 1986). In other words, ecotourists may be able to learn new ERBs through the ERBs
modeled by their tour-guides, peer ecotourists, and communities in or near ecotourist sites.
Bandura (1986) further proposes that acquiring new behaviors through observational learning
requires the completion of a four-step process. He refers to these steps as attention, retention,
production, and motivation. Thus, observational learning theory suggests that the extent to
which ecotourists may adopt behaviors through observing others during their ecotourism
encounter will depend on the extent to which they experience these four steps. Figure 1 pro-
vides an overview of Bandura’s (1986) four-step observational learning process, and Figure 2 pro-
vides an overview of the hypothetical Ecotourism Observational Learning Model our study
sought to test. The following paragraphs describe the model’s features. Each path included in
our hypothetical model (Figure 2, H1–H15) represents a hypothesized relationship among the
model constructs in alignment with Bandura’s (1986) process. All constructs are based on the
participants’ perceptions of themselves and others (i.e., there is only one actor in our hypothe-
sized model, the respondent learner).
Figure 2. Hypothesized Ecotourist Observational Learning Model operationalized based on Bandura’s (1986) four-step obser-
vational learning process.
Attention
The first step, attention, suggests that individuals cannot acquire new behaviors through obser-
vational learning if they do not recognize and engage with features of the modeled behaviors
(Bandura, 1977). We operationalized this first observational learning step in terms of ecotourists’
physical, verbal, and cognitive engagement. This decision was based on environmental interpret-
ation research suggesting that engaging U.S. Park Service visitors in physical, cognitive and ver-
bal ways is critical to achieving a range of desired outcomes including ERB intentions (Stern
et al., 2012).
Physical attention refers to the extent to which ecotourists physically engage in participatory
experiences with nature (i.e., touching or interacting with natural resources) (Stern et al., 2012),
and is a frequently cited “best practice” in the environmental interpretation literature (Beck &
Cable, 2002; Knudson, Cable, & Beck, 2003; Moscardo, 1999; Tilden, 1957). Consistent with
Bandura’s (1986) theory, physical attention can be increased by accentuating the essential fea-
tures of ecotourism experiences which may occur while hiking.
Verbal attention refers to the extent to which individual ecotourists communicate with tour-
guides, other peer ecotourists, or local community members about environmental issues (Beck &
Cable, 2002; Knudson et al., 2003; Moscardo, 1999; Tilden, 1957). Bandura (1986) suggests that
attention-directing narrations can foster-modeled behaviors.
Cognitive attention refers the extent to which individual ecotourists think about their experi-
ence (e.g., use imagination, reflection or mindfulness) (Beck & Cable, 2002; Knudson et al., 2003;
Moscardo, 1999; Sharpe, Tilden, 1957; Veverka, 2011). For example, an ecotourist may stop to
think about the ERBs of others or they may imagine what a specific ecotourism site looked like
in the past. Consistent with Bandura’s (1986) process, cognitive skills or competencies, among
other attributes of an observer, play an essential role in one’s ability to acquire a new behavior
through observation.
Retention
The next phase of the process is retention, meaning that individuals can only be influenced by
modeled behaviors if they recollect or have a memory of these behaviors occurring (Bandura,
1977). For retention to take place, there must be role models who demonstrate the desired
behaviors. In our study, we explore three main role models: tour-guides, peer ecotourists, and
local community members.
Production
The production step stresses that learners must practice, or reproduce modeled behaviors if they
are to replicate them in the future (Bandura, 1986). During an ecotourism experience, the pro-
cess of observational learning therefore relies heavily on the individuals’ ability to reconstruct
and perform modeled ERBs (Bandura, 2002). In other words, this step suggests that ecotourists
must engage in ERBs during their experience if they are to potentially continue to engage in
these behaviors in the future.
Motivation
The motivation stage suggests that even when individuals acquire the knowledge or skills neces-
sary for reproduction of modeled behaviors, they may subsequently not engage in these behav-
iors. More specifically, if individuals receive negative feedback about their actions or behaviors
are seen as having little relevance to their lives, individuals will be less likely to be motivated to
take on new behaviors ( Bandura, 1977, 1986 ). Alternatively, when individuals receive positive
reinforcement, they are more likely to be motivated to turn modeled behaviors into new actions
(Bandura, 1986). Therefore, the extent to which ecotourists’ interactions with tour-guides, peer
ecotourists, and local community members are negatively (e.g., disapproval of littering) or posi-
tively (i.e., praise for using a reusable water bottle) reinforced is expected to play a role in deter-
mining their subsequent ERBs.
ERB intention
Intentions to engage in ERB, are, in turn, ecotourists’ self-reported plans to engage in a range of
specific ERBs after an ecotourism experience (Powell et al., 2009; Powell & Ham, 2008) and can
be understood as a subjective willingness to engage in specific, stated behaviors (Hines,
Hungerford, & Tomera, 1987; Hungerford & Volk, 1990). Intention served as our outcome
of interest.
Present study
Our study sought to advance research on ecotourism and its role in fostering individual ERBs by
exploring how social learning may be able to foster ecotourists’ subsequent ERBs. Bandura’s
(1986) four-step process for observational learning offered the most promising theoretical per-
spective for this purpose because of its focus on social influences and inclusion of production as
well as potential for practically informing ecotourism practice. Accordingly, we sought to answer
the following overarching research question: To what extent does Bandura’s (1986) four-step pro-
cess for observational learning predict ecotourists’ environmentally responsible behavior
(ERB) intentions?
To answer this research question, we operationalized Bandura’s four-step process into an
Ecotourist Observational Learning model (Figure 2). Each of the hypothesized paths in the model
is consistent with Bandura’s four-step model except the additional direct path between produc-
tion and ERB intentions. We added this hypothesized path because of the potential of spillover
effects. One potential spillover effect suggests that conducting one type of ERB influences the
probability of another type of ERB in future (Nilsson, Bergquist, & Schultz, 2017). The other
potential spillover effect suggests even without reinforcement, an ERB performed during an
Figure 3. Study Sites in South Korea. Southkoreamap.png [Digital image], by Garam, 2014. https://commons.wikimedia.org/
wiki/File:Southkoreamap.png. Public Domain.
ecotourism experience (Time 1) may affect the same behavior in future (Time 2) (Nilsson
et al., 2017).
Method
Study sites
Data were collected at five South Korean study sites during 2015 (Figure 3). These sites were
selected in consultation with a representative from Ecotourism Korea, a tour-guide association
located on Jeju Island, one research assistant from Pusan National University studying ecotourism
in South Korea, and one research assistant working closely with a nonprofit organization on Jeju
Island. To be considered for inclusion, sites had to be ecotourism destinations that emphasized
environmental education or interpretation, enjoyment, and appreciation of natural or cultural
resources in ways that promote ecological, socio-cultural, and economic sustainability (Blamey,
2001; Lee et al., 2013; Weaver, 2002; Weaver & Lawton, 2007). An unanticipated outbreak of
MERS (Middle Eastern Repertory Syndrome) (Cowling et al., 2015) severely affected the South
Korea’s ecosystem tourism industry that summer and limited the inclusion of additional sites.
Three of the five study sites were located on Jeju Island, a designated UNESCO World Natural
Heritage Site recognized under UNESCO’s Man and the Biosphere (MAB) Programme and certi-
fied as one of the UNESCO Global Geoparks. One of the three Jeju sites is Dong Baek Dong San,
also known as Seaonheul Gotjawal. Saeonheul is designated as an “ecotourism village” by
Ecotourism Korea and is a designated Ramsar Convention Wetland. It is known for community-
based ecotourism centered on the wetland ecosystem and the cultural history of the area. The
second Jeju site is Geomun Oreum. Also a UNESCO World Natural Heritage Site, Geomun Oreum
is known for its ancient volcanic rock formations, pristine forests, and is a popular breeding
grounds for local birds. The Ministry of Environment selected Geomun Oreum as one of the “20
Ecotourism Destinations” in 2009 and as one of the “10 Korean Ecotourism Models” in 2010. The
third Jeju location is the Jeoji oreum in Jeoji-ri. This site is part of the Jeju Island UNESCO certifi-
cations and features scenic hiking opportunities through a network of public trails.
The remaining two sites were in the southern region of mainland South Korea. The fourth
study site, Nakdonggang River Estuary, also known as Elsukdo Migratory Bird Park, is located
near the city of Busan, in the southern part of the South Korean mainland. Elsukdo is certified by
Ecotourism Korea as an “ecotourism site” and was designated as one of the 25 Wonders of
Nature at the 2012 IUCN World Conservation Congress in Korea (2012 World Conservation
Congress & Korean Ministry of Environment, 2012). Elsukdo is comprised of reed beds, mudflats
and sand dunes, which provide shelter and habitat for a wide range of migratory birds. Upo
Wetlands, the fifth study site, is located in Changnyeoung in the southern part of the South
Korean Peninsula. Upo was designated an Ecology Protection Area in 1997 and registered as a
Ramsar Convention Wetland in 1998 (Ramsar, 2018). It is a Wetlands Protection Area, a Natural
Monument, and was named one of the 25 Wonders of Nature at the 2012 IUCN World
Conservation Congress. Many ecotourists visit this site for bird watching and hiking in the largest
wetland in South Korea.
Sample
Data were collected from a convenience sample of ecotourists drawn from the five study sites
over a period of three months. Each ecotourist was approached by two Korean-language
research assistants at the end of their eco-tour and asked to participate in the study. Of the 391
ecotourists approached, 232 agreed to participate (59% response rate). After removing incom-
plete questionnaires, the final sample size was n ¼ 207. Due to the 2015 MERS outbreak in South
Korea, this sample, just like the number of study sites, was smaller than initially planned. In part
due to our smaller sample size, we chose to use path analysis of the mean values of items in
our constructs rather than a full structural equation model using latent variables.
Table 1 summarizes the respondents’ characteristics.
Measurement scales
The study’s questionnaire was originally written in English, and then translated into Korean. It
was then back-translated into English to ensure that each item was translated conceptually and
culturally, rather than literally (Sperber, 2004). All translations were conducted by Korean nation-
als, including one professor at the Seoul National University, and one professional translator who
is familiar with tourism terminology. The draft questionnaire was shared with five ecotourism
professionals in Korea and revised based on feedback regarding content and cultural compatibil-
ity. The feedback and revisions included slight modifications of the wording based on context
and cultural transferability as well as a few modifications of the demographic questions.1 The
instrument was then again translated, and back-translated to ensure culturally appropriate
translations.
The final questionnaire included multiple items to measure each of the nine constructs
included in the model: physical attention, cognitive attention, verbal attention, tour-guide reten-
tion, community retention, ecotourist retention, production, motivation, and ERB intention (Table
2). Physical, verbal, cognitive attention, tour-guide, peer ecotourist and community retention,
and production were measured using a 7-point scale with 1 ¼ never to 7 ¼ frequently (Wade,
2006). Motivation and ERB intentions were measured on a 7-point scale with 1 ¼ strongly dis-
agree to 7 ¼ strongly agree.
Table 1. Ecotourist respondents’ demographics and background.

Variables Frequency Percentage (%)
Gender (n ¼ 205)
Male 84 41
Female 119 58
I’d rather not say 2 1
Country of origin (n ¼ 205)
Korea 203 99
United States of America 1 <1
Other 1 <1
Age (n ¼ 205)
18–24 25 12
25–34 41 20
35–44 70 34
45–54 41 20
55 and older 28 14
Income (n ¼ 200)
<$30,000 50 25
$30,001–50,000 62 31
$50,001–100,000 59 30
>$100,001 29 14
Education (n ¼ 201)
Secondary school 4 2
High school diploma 37 18
Bachelor’s degree 126 63
Master’s degree 25 12
Doctorate degree or higher 9 5
Environmental Org. Membership (n ¼ 207)
Yes 188 91
No 19 9
Previous ecotourism experience (n ¼ 203)
First time 52 26
1 time 33 16
2 times 50 25
3-4 times 42 21
5-6 times 7 3
7 or more times 19 9
Duration of experience (n ¼ 207)
Day trip 112 54
1 night, 2 days 16 8
2 nights, 3 days 22 11
5 nights, 6 days or longer 17 8
Other 15 7
Three items were used to measure each of the physical, verbal, and cognitive attention con-
structs. These items were developed based on Stern et al. (2012) research identifying best inter-
pretive practices, which included programs that were physically, verbally, and cognitively
engaging. Stern et al. (2012) defined these characteristics consistent with Bandura’s physical, ver-
bal, and cognitive attention; i.e., the degree to which individuals interacted in a participatory
manner across all three modes of engagement. Because Stern et al. (2012) defined physical
engagement as the “degree to which the program physically engaged audience members in a
participatory experience; i.e., through touching or interacting with a resource (p. 17),” we chose
to measure, for example, ask how frequently ecotourists “hiked with other ecotourists within a
natural area.” Similarly, Stern et al. (2012) defined verbal engagement as the “degree to which
the program verbally engaged audience members in a participatory experience; i.e., dialogue (a
two-way discussion) (p. 17).” Drawing on this definition, we asked, for example how frequently
ecotourists had “an informal discussion with a tour-guide about environmental issues.” Lastly,
Stern et al. (2012) defined cognitive engagement as the “degree to which the program cogni-
tively engaged audience members in a participatory experience beyond simply listening; i.e., calls
Table 2. Confirmatory factor analysis results for all factors included in the study.
Factor
Physical attention Score
How often did you experience the following activities during you current ecotourism experience …
Hiked with a tour-guide within a natural area 0.87
Hiked with other ecotourists within a natural area 0.86
Hiked within a natural area where local community members were present 0.48
Cronbach’s alpha 0.78
Composite reliability 0.80
Average variance extracted 0.58
Verbal attention
How often did you experience the following activities during you current ecotourism experience.
An informal discussion with a tour-guide about environmental issues 0.81
An informal discussion with other ecotourists about environmental issues 0.99
An informal discussion with local community members about environmental issues 0.74
Cognitive attention
How often did you experience the following activities during you current ecotourism experience
Thought about the environmental behaviors demonstrated between the tour-guide 0.85
Thought about the environmental behaviors demonstrated by other ecotourists 0.92
Thought about the environmental behaviors demonstrated by local community members 0.89
Tour-guide retention
How often did you observe the following behaviors during you current ecotourism experience.
The tour-guide recycling 0.76
The tour-guide teaching others about the environment 0.69
The tour-guide conserving water (e.g., using minimal water to wash hands) 0.88
The tour-guide demonstrating composting techniques 0.81
The tour-guide conserving energy (e.g. turning off lights when leaving a room) 0.78
Community retention
How often did you observe the following behaviors during you current ecotourism experience
Local community members conserving water 0.78
Local community members recycling 0.80
Local community members gardening (e.g., vegetables or flowers) 0.97
Ecotourist retention
How often did you observe the following behaviors during you current ecotourism experience
Other ecotourists using reusable containers for water 0.69
Other ecotourists picking up litter 0.77
Other ecotourists reading books, publications, and other material about environmental issues 0.79
Production
How often did you engage in the following behavior during your current ecotourism experience …
Read books, publications, and other material about environmental issues 0.65
Picked up litter off the ground 0.65
Recycled 0.66
Composted biodegradable waste 0.72
Conserved water (e.g., turning off the tap while brushing teeth) 0.64
Conserved energy (e.g., turning off the lights when leaving a room) 0.59
Financially contributed to local conservation efforts 0.74
Encouraged other ecotourists to protect the environment 0.72
Encouraged local community members to protect the environment 0.65
(continued)
Table 2. Continued.
Factor
Physical attention Score
Motivation
To what extent do you agree with the following statements about your current ecotourism experience:
The tour-guide offered positive recognition to those who used reusable water bottles 0.88
The tour-guide offered positive recognition to those who recycled 0.91
Local community members offered positive recognition to those who conserved resources (e.g., water and energy) 0.92
Local community members offered positive recognition to those who picked up litter 0.72
Other ecotourists offered positive recognition to those who financially contributed to local conservation efforts 0.69
Other ecotourists offered positive recognition to those who read books, publications, and other material about 0.70
environmental issues
Environmentally responsible behavioral intention
How likely is it that you will engage in the following behaviors within the next year
Read books, publications, and other material about environmental issues 0.66
Watch TV programs or documentaries about environmental issues 0.76
Enroll in a nature-based educational program 0.68
Sort my trash to separate no-recyclable material from recyclable material 0.72
Use reusable containers (e.g., water bottles) 0.70
Encourage others to protect the natural environment 0.76
Encourage others to engage in eco-friendly travel 0.80
to imagine something, reflect, etc. (p. 17).” This definition inspired us to ask, for example, how
frequently ecotourists “thought about the environmental behaviors demonstrated by local com-
munity members.”
Eleven total items were used to measure tour-guide retention (five items), community reten-
tion (three items), and ecotourist retention (three items) constructs. These items were developed
and modified from Kil, Holland, and Stein (2014) as well as Powell and Ham (2008) who meas-
ured ERB intentions and ERB. The ERBs we asked about were ones feasible for the respective
stakeholders in the study sites.
The nine items included to measure production were adapted from ecotourism and ERB stud-
ies (Chiu, Lee, & Chen, 2014; Kil et al., 2014; Powell & Ham, 2008), as were the six items used to
measure motivation (Chiu et al., 2014; Kil et al., 2014; Lee & Moscardo, 2005; Powell & Ham,
2008). The nine production items were modified from the aforementioned authors’ studies to
measure direct engagement in ERBs during the ecotourism experience. For example, our study
asked respondents how often they engaged in the following behavior during their ecotourism
experience: “financially contributed to local conservation efforts.” This item was developed based
on Kil et al. (2014) “donated money or paid membership to an environmental/conservation
organization” (p. 327) as well as Powell and Ham (2008) intention to “donate money to organiza-
tions concerned with the protection and improvement of the Galapagos” (p. 480).
We changed the response options from those that the above two authors used, to be consist-
ent across the questionnaire and potentially generate a broader distribution of responses. For
example, instead of asking participants about how frequently they “read books/magazines about
the environment” using a five-point Likert scale ranging from “never” to “a great deal” (Kil et al.,
2014, p. 22), we asked to what extent they agreed with the following statement “Other ecotou-
rists offered positive recognition to those who read books, publications, and other materials
about environmental issues” on a seven-point scale.
ERB intentions were measured using 14 items based on ecotourism studies by Chiu et al.
(2014), Kil et al. (2014), Lee and Moscardo (2005), Powell and Ham (2008), and Smith-Sebasto
and D’Costa (1995). As was the case in these authors’ studies, we asked respondents about their
likelihood of engaging in specific ERBs over the next year. We asked about the same behaviors
as these studies, with some relatively minor wording changes. For example, Powell and Ham
(2008) measured the ecotourists’ intention for “donating money to organizations concerned with
the protection and improvement of the Galapagos” (p. 480) whereas we asked about their likeli-
hood to “donate to environmental organizations.”
We measured ERB intentions because intentions are the best proxy measure for behavior in situa-
tions when it is not possible to measure overt behavior (Parcel, 1984). The use of ERB intentions as
proxy measures for overt ERBs is also justified based on the ecotourism studies’ findings that consist-
ently find the two to be correlated (Ballantyne et al., 2011; Hughes, 2013; Smith, Broad, &
Weiler, 2008).
In summary, we consistently measured many of the same ERB’s but within different contexts,
i.e., being present in an experience where ERBs occurred [attention], recalling demonstrated ERBs
[retention], engaging in ERBs during the experience [production] and receiving positive feedback
for engaging in ERBs [motivation]. Because our goal was to operationalize Bandura’s (1986)
observational learning model, we were unable to adopt verbatim scales, but made every attempt
to stay consistent with their intent.
Analysis
After Pearson’s correlation coefficients verified that the respective variables’ items were corre-
lated with each other, confirmatory factor analyses were conducted using Stata v.14. The
observed variables were found to measure the study’s latent variables of interest (Harrington,
2008), with factors loadings ranging from 0.48 to 0.99 (Table 2). Reliabilities were also strong
with Cronbach’s a ranging from 0.78 to 0.92, Composite Reliability (CR) ranging from 0.79 to
0.92 and Average Variance Extracted (AVE) ranging from 0.45 to 0.73 (Fornell & Larcker, 1981)
(Table 2). Factor means were included in the subsequent path analysis, which was also con-
ducted using the Stata v. 14.
The path analysis explored to what extent the constructs in the hypothesized model directly
and indirectly explained the tourist’s ERB intentions. The analysis included measurement of cova-
riances of the three exogenous constructs (physical, verbal, and cognitive attention) as well as
the covariances of errors of the three retention constructs (tour-guide, peer ecotourist, and com-
munity). Model fit was assessed using Comparative Fit Index (CFI), Tucker Lewis Index (TLI), and
Root-Mean-Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) (Kline, 2011). The CFI should be above 0.95
and RMSEA less than 0.08 for a good model fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999) and TLI should not be below
0.9 (Hu & Bentler, 1999).
Results
Descriptive statistics
Participating ecotourists reported a moderate level of physical and cognitive attention and
slightly a lower level of verbal attention during their ecotourism experience (means ¼ 3.48, 3.65,
2.94, respectively). The three retention factors were rated moderately as well, with community
retention and ecotourist retention rated slightly higher than tour-guide retention (means ¼ 3.84,
3.68,3.15, respectively). Production was reported near the middle of the scale (mean ¼ 3.91).
Motivation and environmentally responsible behavioral intention were higher (means ¼ 5.67,
4.92, respectively) (Table 3).
Goodness-of-fit indices indicated an acceptable model fit (CFI ¼ 0.97, TLI ¼ 0.94, RMSEA ¼
0.07, v2 ¼ 30.25, p ¼ 0.01) (Figure 4). Almost all factors were predicted moderately well (R2 range:
.19-.53), with the exception of motivation (R2¼.06). Only four of the 15 hypothesized direct paths
Table 3. Descriptive statistics for all factors.

Factor name n Mean Standard Deviation
Physical attention 196 3.48 1.63
Verbal attention 190 2.94 1.68
Cognitive attention 198 3.65 1.85
Tour-Guide retention 192 3.15 1.61
Community retention 192 3.84 1.75
Ecotourist retention 195 3.68 1.61
Production 205 3.91 1.42
Motivation 207 5.67 1.12
Environmentally responsible behavioral intention 207 4.92 1.32
Figure 4. Path analysis results of the Ecotourist Observational Learning Model.
were not statistically significant (i.e., physical attention ! community retention, verbal attention
! community & ecotourist retention, community retention ! production.) (Figure 4).
Table 4 provides an overview of the factors’ direct and indirect effects in the path model. The
following paragraphs describe these results in greater detail.
Attention
Ecotourism attention subfactors (i.e., physical, verbal, and cognitive) predicted the retention sub-
factors (i.e. community, tour-guide, and peer ecotourists) quite well (R2 ¼ .43, .42, .31, respect-
ively) with six statistically significant paths and three nonsignificant paths. The ecotourists’ cogni-
tive attention had a strong relationship with their level of community retention (b ¼ 0.56,
p < 0.001) and ecotourist retention (b ¼ 0.42, p < 0.001), and a relatively small association with
tour-guide retention (b ¼ 0.18, p < 0.05). Ecotourists’ level of physical attention was moderately
associated with both tour-guide retention (b ¼ 0.29, p < 0.001) and ecotourist retention (b ¼ 0.22,
p < 0.02). Ecotourists’ level of verbal attention was also moderately associated with tour-guide
retention (b ¼ 0.25, p < 0.01).
The model also showed that the three attention subfactors (i.e., physical, verbal, and cogni-
tive) were significantly indirectly associated with production, motivation, and ERB intentions.
Cognitive attention (b ¼ 0.29, p < 0.001) and physical attention (b ¼ 0.19, p < 0.003) was indirectly
Table 4. Summary of the direct and indirect effects path model.

Direct effects
Outcome variable Standardized Indirect effects Standardized
Predictor variable coefficient p coefficient p R2
Community retention 0.42
Physical attention 0.10 0.26 n/a n/a
Verbal attention 0.02 0.83 n/a n/a
Cognitive attention 0.56 0.000 n/a n/a
Tour-guide retention 0.43
Ecotouist retention 0.31
Production 0.53
Community retention 0.12 0.13 n/a n/a
Tour guide retention 0.32 0.000 n/a n/a
Ecotourist retention 0.40 0.000 n/a n/a
Physical attention n/a n/a 0.19 0.003
Verbal attention n/a n/a 0.06 0.40
Cognitive attention n/a n/a 0.29 0.000
Motivation 0.06
Community retention n/a n/a 0.03 0.13
Tour guide retention n/a n/a 0.08 0.000
Ecotourist retention n/a n/a 0.1 0.000
Cognitive attention n/a n/a 0.07 .006
Production 0.25 0.000 n/a n/a
Environmentally responsible behavioral intention 0.19
Community retention n/a n/a 0.04 0.13
Tour guide retention n/a n/a 0.11 0.000
Ecotourist retention n/a n/a 0.13 0.000
Cognitive attention n/a n/a 0.10 0.001
Production 0.26 0.000 0.08 0.000
Motivation 0.29 0.000 n/a n/a
Overall R2 0.55

p < 0.05.

p < 0.01.
p < 0.001 H0: Standardized mean coefficient ¼ 0.
associated with production. Similarly, physical attention (b ¼ 0.05, p < 0.02) and cognitive atten-
tion (b ¼ 0.07, p < 0.006) had a very small, but positive, indirect relationships with motivation,
which were mediated by ecotourist retention, tour-guide retention and production. Finally, phys-
ical attention (b ¼ 0.06, p < 0.001) and cognitive attention (b ¼ 0.10, p < 0.001) also had very
small indirect associations with ERB intentions.
Retention
Two of three hypothesized direct paths from the retention subfactors to production, were statis-
tically significant. The ecotourists’ level of ecotourist retention (b ¼ 0.40, p < 0.001) and tour-
guide retention (b ¼ 0.32, p < 0.001) had a moderate association with their level of production
whereas the community retention’s direct path to production, was not statistically significant.
Tour-guide retention (indirect effects coefficient ¼ 0.08, p < 0.001) and ecotourist retention
(indirect effects coefficient ¼ 0.10, p < 0.001) had small indirect associations with motivation
mediated by production. Additionally, the same two retention factors were indirectly associated
with ERB intentions with tour-guide retention (indirect effects coefficient ¼ 0.11, p < 0.001) and
ecotourist retention (indirect effects coefficient ¼ 0.13, p < 0.001) had similarly small and indirect
associations with ERB Intentions. Community retention did not have any statistically significant
indirect effects with these variables.
Production
The model predicted a relatively large amount of the variance for production (R2¼.53). The eco-
tourists’ production was moderately associated with motivation (b ¼ 0.25, p < 0.001). Production
was also directly (b ¼ 0.26, p < 0.001) and indirectly (indirect effects coefficient ¼ 0.08, p < 0.001),
through motivation, associated with ERB intentions, for a total moderate relationship (total
effects coefficient¼ 0.34, p < 0.001).
Motivation
The model only predicted a small amount of the variance for motivation (R2¼.06). The ecotou-
rists’ motivation was moderately associated with ERB Intentions (b ¼ 0.29, p < 0.001).
Environmentally responsible behavioral intentions

The model modestly predicted ERB intentions (R2¼.19). ERB intentions were statistically signifi-
cantly directly and indirectly associated with many of the factors in the model. Production, (b ¼
0.26, p < 0.001) and motivation (b¼ 0.29, p < 0.001) had direct relationships with ERB intentions.
In addition, five other antecedents had indirect, although relatively small relationships with ERB
intentions: Physical attention (indirect effects coefficient ¼ 0.06, p < 0.000), cognitive attention
(indirect effects coefficient ¼ 0.10, p < 0.001), tour-guide retention (indirect effects coefficient ¼
0.11, p < 0.001), ecotourist retention (indirect effects coefficient ¼ 0.13, p < 0.001) and production
(indirect effects coefficient ¼ 0.08, p < 0.001).
Discussion
Our study explored the extent to which Bandura’s (1986) four-step observational learning pro-
cess, a key element of Social Learning Theory (Bandura, 1977), can explain ecotourists’ intentions
to engage in ERB intentions after an ecotourism experience in South Korea. While Social
Learning Theory ( Bandura, 1977, 1986 ), including its four-step observational learning process
has been used to explain behaviors in a variety of educational settings (Bandura, 2009; Brown
et al., 2005; Rosenstock et al., 1988), our study is the first to do so in an ecotourism context.
Results confirm that observational learning (i.e. attention, retention, production, and motivation)
is a key determinant of the ecotourists’ ERB intentions.
Our findings add to the research exploring the link between ecotourism participation and ERB
(Ardoin et al., 2015; Chiu et al., 2014; Hwang & Lee, 2018; Kim et al., 2018; Lee, 2011; Lee & Jan,
2017) in important ways. For one, our study’s results provide additional support for a positive
relationship between ecotourism and ERB, an outcome critical for engendering an environmen-
tally responsible citizenry (Ardoin et al., 2015).
Second, our study fills a critical theoretical gap by explaining how ecotourism experiences
may lead to ERBs; i.e., through observational learning involving tour-guides, peer ecotourists, and
possibly, local community members. As such, our study is one of the first theory-based papers to
explore what underlying processes explain changes in visitors ERBs (Ardoin et al., 2015).
Lastly, although a number of South Korean scholars have investigated the benefits of ecotour-
ism (Do et al., 2015; Kim & Park, 2017; Lee et al., 2013), until very recently, none have explored
to what extent these experiences result in ERBs. Our study thus, makes a valuable contribution
to research on South Korean eco-tourists, that thus, more generally on ones from nonwes-
tern countries.
Observational learning in ecotourism and its role in predicting ERB intentions

As suggested by Bandura’s (1986) observational learning process and confirmed by our empirical
results, ecotourists’ expressed ERB intentions after an ecotourism experience can be influenced
by their observational learning of ERBs during the experience.
More specifically, findings suggest that ecotourists need to be actively engaged physically,
verbally, and cognitively, during their experience if they are to learn through observation.
Physically interacting with natural resources (i.e., hiking in a natural area with others) was posi-
tively associated with ecotourists observing both tour-guides and peer ecotourists demonstrating
ERBs. Consistent with Bandura (1986, 2016), this finding suggests that ecotourists who engaged
in such physical activities were disposed to observe tour-guides and peer ecotourists model-
ing ERBs.
Furthermore, having informal conversations about environmental issues was also associated
with observation of tour-guides demonstrated ERBs. This may be due to the special relationship
between ecotourists and their tour-guide, as indicated by Weiler and Ham (2002), who suggested
that ecotour-guides play an integral role in providing high-quality interpretation of ecotourism
destinations by informing, involving, and inspiring visitors.
Thinking about the ERBs of others was related to observing all three potential behavioral role
models (i.e., tour-guides, peers, and community members), suggesting that ecotourists who
actively think about others’ ERBs are particularly primed to pay attention to them when they
are modeled.
As just described and consistent with the hypotheses in our proposed model, all forms of
attention (i.e., physical, verbal, cognitive) were associated with observing tour-guides’ and peers’
actions. These were, in turn, related to engaging in modeled ERBs during the experience, receiv-
ing feedback for engaging in these behaviors, and ultimately with ecotourists reporting
ERB intentions.
In contrast and inconsistent with the hypotheses in our proposed model, observing commu-
nity members was not associated with ecotourists’ physical or verbal attention or with engaging
in ERBs during their experience. It is possible that the ecotourists at the five sites included in our
sample did not have the opportunity to observe local community members or that local commu-
nity members did not model ERBs. Another possible explanation for these findings is that the
modeled behaviors by tour-guides and peer ecotourists may have overshadowed those by local
community members. As described earlier, there is a special relationship between tour-guides
and ecotourists. Guides inform, involve and even inspire ecotourists (Weiler & Ham, 2002). Peer
ecotourists were likely salient role models during an ecotourism experience. As, Lee et al. (2013)
suggest, South Korean ecotourists value their experience more if they are able to compete
against their peers, prompting them to be likely to observe them. As Bandura (1986) suggests,
providing a model of thought or action is one of the most efficient ways of fostering
new behaviors.
Lastly, contrary to the observational learning processes linear progression which only suggests
a direct path between practicing behaviors ! receiving reinforcement ! intentions to engage
in these behavior in future, and consistent with our hypothesis there was also a direct path
between practicing behaviors ! intentions to engage in these behavior in future. As suggested
in the introduction, we believe this finding reflects a spillover effect, meaning that even without
reinforcement, an ERB performed during an ecotourism experience (Time 1) may foster the same
behavior in future (Time 2) (Nilsson et al., 2017).
Implications for ecotourism programs

Proponents of ecotourism argue that when travel is predominantly nature-based and emphasizes
environmental education, enjoyment, and appreciation of natural or cultural resources, it can
promote ecological, socio-cultural, and economic sustainability in that ecotourism setting and
beyond (Blamey, 2001; Lee et al., 2013; Weaver, 2002; Weaver & Lawton, 2007). To build a more
environmentally responsible constituency and achieve sustainable outcomes as a result of eco-
tourism, our study’s results suggest that it is important for ecotourism stakeholders, including
program managers and tour-guides, to understand the impacts that various role models have on
ecotourists’ ERBs during and after ecotourism participation, and plan accordingly. Based on the
findings of our study, it appears to be especially important that tour-guides model ERBs through-
out the ecotourism experience, to encourage all participants in an ecotourism experience to par-
ticipate in these ERBs, and offer positive reinforcement when they perform these ERBs. Lastly,
our study suggests that engaging participants in multisensory ways (i.e., physically, verbally, and
cognitively) plays an important role in ultimately leading to ERB intentions, by priming them to
observe others’ ERBs during an ecotourism experience. Tour-guides should be made aware of
the critical role they play in fostering ERB’s during and after an ecotourism experience and may
require professional development to prepare them for doing so effectively. For example, ecotour-
ism operations could train guides to demonstrate behaviors that directly align with the overall
conservation goals of a protected area (i.e., habitat protection or cultural preservation) and in
how they can effectively promote observational learning through the processes proposed by the
Ecotourist Observational Learning Model.
Implications for Korean ecotourism programs

South Koreans have a very strong drive to learn (Lee et al., 2013), including as our study shows,
from their ecotourism experience. The social learning they experience through these experiences,
in turn, foster their intent to engage in environmentally responsible behaviors. These conclusions
are based on our finding that Bandura’s (1986) four-step observational learning process predicted
the South Korean ecotourists’ ERB intentions. As such, our results make in important contribu-
tions by providing evidence that South Korean ecotourism can foster environmentally respon-
sible behavior and by providing insight into the underlying processes that explain how
ecotourism experiences result in this outcome, one critical to building a more environmentally
responsible constituency that will contribute to South Korea’s sustainable development goals.
Limitations
The present study has several limitations. Although we presented a novel approach to explaining
how ecotourism may lead participants to form ERB intentions, the model’s modest coefficient of
determination (R2 ¼ .19) suggests that observational learning accounts for an important but
nonetheless limited variance in ERB intentions. In contrast to our study, for example, another the-
ory-based study that used structural equation modeling (SEM) to predict ERBs had a larger
R2 ¼ .36 (Chiu et al., 2014). That study included Expectancy-Value-Theory (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975)
(i.e., beliefs about an object, attitudes toward behavior), Theory of Planned Behavior (Ajzen,
1991) (i.e., attitudes toward behavior, subjective norm, and perceived behavioral control) and
other variables (e.g., activity involvement, satisfaction with experience). Additionally, ideally the-
ory-based studies conducting path analysis and structural equation modeling (SEM) (to
incorporate measurement error) are needed to further explain the remaining variance in ERB
intentions and ERBs as well as to understand the underlying processes leading to these out-
comes. Although our sample size was high enough for path analysis based on commonly
accepted criteria (Kline, 2011) and other considerations including high mean item loading scores
and low missing data (Wolf, Harrington, Clark, & Miller, 2013), it was insufficient for SEM.
Our research built primarily on the research reviewed by Ardoin et al. (2015), that sought to
understand the relationship between ecotourism and ERB from an environmental education or
interpretation perspective. As suggested by our examples just above, we recognize that research-
ers from other disciplines have sought to explain these linkages as well. We chose to focus on
the former because we expected the features Ardoin et al. (2015) identified as key to be inter-
linked as suggested by observational learning, and because they stressed the need for research
to explore the processes underlying the relationship between ecotourism and ERB. In addition,
our study measured self-reported ERB intentions and thus, we are not able to draw conclusions
about the extent to which observational learning may ultimately lead to overt ERBs. At the same
time, self-reported ERB intentions are the best predictor of overt ERB with a mean correlation of
0.52 (Bamberg & Mo €ser, 2007).
While we were sensitive to adapting a Western learning framework to a Korean context and
engaged with South Koreans ecotourism researchers and professionals about how best to do so,
we acknowledge the potential for cultural misalignments. We hoped to provide additional
insight into the comparison between Korean Ecotourists and Western Ecotourists, however, with
the outbreak of MERS during our data collection, we were limited to a primarily Korean sample.
Our study provides valuable contributions to understanding ecotourism’s link to ERB intentions
in South Korea, but based on our convenience sample, results cannot be generalized to all
South Korean or other ecotourist populations. In addition our study sample included more
female than male respondents and thus, our findings may not be as applicable for male ecotou-
rists. It is possible that more woman then men participated in the respective ecotourism pro-
grams or that women may have been more likely to respond than men. Many studies suggest
that females are more likely to respond to surveys than men (Sax, Gilmartin, & Bryant, 2003).
Lastly, there is much debate about the definition and operationalization of social learning the-
ory (Reed et al., 2010). As a result we had to determine how best to do so, including in a way
appropriate for ecotourism. Although our initial findings suggest that social learning plays a role
in explaining ecotourists’ ERB intentions, we are not claiming to have measured all of the factors
needed to fully understand social learning and its role in promoting ERBs through ecotourism.
We also acknowledge the inherent limitation of questionnaires based on self-reports and the
possibility of social bias to have influenced our findings.
Future directions
Bandura (2016) points out that a common misconception of observational learning is that model-
ing stifles innovation; he argues that the opposite is true. Learning through observation can pro-
mote creativity and foster innovative styles of thinking and processing information. After people
extract the key features of a modeled behavior, they are able to construct new forms of that
behavior that often go beyond the original modeled behavior. Within the context of ecotourism,
for example, an ecotourist may observe a role model using a reusable water bottle. Through the
process of observational learning, the ecotourist extracts the key features of this behavior (i.e.
reusing a container) and may construct a new form of that behavior (i.e. using reusable bags at
the grocery store). Bandura (2016) argues that observational learning goes deeper than simple
mimicry; it also includes a learner’s ability to build on modeled behaviors and extend or translate
those behaviors to other settings. Future ecotourism research should explore such potential
positive spillover effects to better understand how observational learning predicts overt ERBs
after ecotourism participation.
Our study’s findings are promising with regard to the role of observational learning in explain-
ing the ecotourists’ ERB intentions. Additional studies are needed to further test our proposed
model in different manifestations of ecotourism across the world. For example, it would be valu-
able to explore this model with ecotourists outside of South Korea, or within alternative forms of
ecotourism (i.e., whale watching tours, trekking tours, wildlife sites, or destinations where local
communities model ERBs such as ecovillages). Bandura’s research has found that social learning
including observational learning plays an important role in learning across cultures (Bandura,
2002) and thus we are confident that the many of our preliminary findings will also hold true in
other countries. Furthermore, and consistent with Ardoin et al. (2015), future studies should aim
to empirically document overt ERB in addition to ERB intentions, in response to social learning
during and after ecotourism participation. Others who seek to build a more environmentally
responsible citizenry through the ecotourists’ ERBs are encouraged to build on our observational
learning model as a potential vehicle to do so.
Note
1. In Korea, everyone is one-year-old from the time that they are born, and everyone gets one year older on
New Year’s day. Koreans are therefore one or two years older than their Western counterparts.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Funding
This work was supported by the Horace H. Rackham School of Graduate Studies, University of Michigan; School of
Environment and Sustainability, University of Michigan; and Nam Center for Korean Studies, University of Michigan.
Notes on contributors
Benjamin Morse graduated with an MS in behavior, education and communication from the School for
Environment and Sustainability at the University of Michigan, United States. His research interests include sustain-
able tourism, environmental education, and innovative education methods.
Jennifer Carman is a doctoral candidate at the School for Environment and Sustainability at the University of
Michigan, United States. Her research areas include environmental education, program evaluation, and sustainable
behavior. Her current work focuses on identifying the predictors and practices associated with sustainable behav-
iors in response to climate change impacts.
Dr Michaela Zint is a professor in the School for Environment and Sustainability, College of Literature, Science &
the Arts, and School of Education at the University of Michigan, United States. Her research interests include envir-
onmental education with a focus on behavior change and program evaluation as well as exploring how integrative
social science-based approaches can help us understand and overcome environmental sustainability challenges.
ORCID
Benjamin A. B. Morse http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9472-5779
References
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2),
179–211. doi:10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
Ardoin, N. M., Wheaton, M., Bowers, A. W., Hunt, C. A., & Durham, W. H. (2015). Nature-based tourism’s impact on
environmental knowledge, attitudes, and behavior: A review and analysis of the literature and potential future
research. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 23(6), 838–858. doi:10.1080/09669582.2015.1024258
Ballantyne, R., Packer, J., & Falk, J. (2011). Visitors’ learning for environmental sustainability: Testing short-and long-
term impacts of wildlife tourism experiences using structural equation modelling. Tourism Management, 32(6),
1243–1252. doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2010.11.003
Bamberg, S., & Mo €ser, G. (2007). Twenty years after Hines, Hungerford, and Tomera: A new meta-analysis of psy-
cho-social determinants of pro-environmental behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 27(1), 14–25. doi:
10.1016/j.jenvp.2006.12.002
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191.
doi:10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-
Hall.
Bandura, A. (2002). Social cognitive theory in cultural context. Applied Psychology, 51(2), 269–290. doi:10.1111/1464-
0597.00092
Bandura, A. (2009). Social cognitive theory of mass communication. In J. Bryant & M. B. Oliver (Eds.), Media effects
(3rd ed., pp. 110–140). New York: Routledge.
Bandura, A. (2016). 50 The Power of Observational Learning Through Social Modeling. In R. J. Sternberg, S. T. Fiske &
D. J. Foss (Eds.), Scientists Making a Difference: One Hundred Eminent Behavioral and Brain Scientists Talk about
Their Most Important Contributions, (pp. 235-238). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Beck, L., & Cable, T. (2002). The meaning of interpretation. Journal of Interpretation Research, 7(1), 7–10.
€rk, P. (2000). Ecotourism from a conceptual perspective, an extended definition of a unique tourism form.
Bjo
International Journal of Tourism Research, 2, 189–202.
Boo, E. (1990). Ecotourism: The potentials and pitfalls. Washington DC: World Wildlife Fund.
Brown, M. E., Trevin ~o, L. K., & Harrison, D. A. (2005). Ethical leadership: A social learning perspective for construct
development and testing. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 97(2), 117–134. doi:10.1016/j.
obhdp.2005.03.002
Buckley, R., Cater, C., Linsheng, Z., & Chen, T. (2008). Shengtai luyou: Cross-cultural comparison in ecotourism.
Annals of Tourism Research, 35(4), 945–968. doi:10.1016/j.annals.2008.07.002
Buckley, R. (2009). Ecotourism: Principles and practices. Wallingford: CABI.
Cater, E. (2006). Ecotourism as a western construct. Journal of Ecotourism, 5(1-2), 23–39. doi:10.1080/
14724040608668445
Chiu, Y.-T., Lee, W.-I., & Chen, T.-H. (2014). Environmentally responsible behavior in ecotourism: Antecedents and
implications. Tourism Management, 40, 321–329. doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2013.06.013
Choi, Y. E., Doh, M., Park, S., & Chon, J. (2017). Transformation Planning of Ecotourism Systems to Invigorate
Responsible Tourism. Sustainability, 9(12), 2248. doi:10.3390/su9122248
Cohen, E. (1985). The tourist guide: The origins, structure and dynamics of a role. Annals of Tourism Research, 12(1),
5–29. doi:10.1016/0160-7383(85)90037-4
Connolly, G. J. (2017). Applying social cognitive theory in coaching athletes: The power of positive role models.
Strategies, 30(3), 23–29. doi:10.1080/08924562.2017.1297750
Conway, T., & Cawley, M. (2016). Defining ecotourism: Evidence of provider perspectives from an emerging area.
Journal of Ecotourism, 15(2), 122–138. doi:10.1080/14724049.2016.1153105
Cowling, B. J., Park, M., Fang, V. J., Wu, P., Leung, G. M., & Wu, J. T. (2015). Preliminary epidemiologic assessment of
MERS-CoV outbreak in South Korea, May–June 2015. Euro Surveillance: Bulletin Europeen Sur Les Maladies
Transmissibles ¼ European Communicable Disease Bulletin, 20(25), 7–15.
Center for Responsible Tourism (2017). The Case for Responsible Tourism: Trends and Statistics.http://responsible-
travel.org/docs/The%20Case%20for%20Responsible%20Travel%202017_Final%20for%20Release.pdf (accessed on
27 April, 2018).
Do, Y., Kim, S. B., Kim, J. Y., & Joo, G. J. (2015). Wetland-based tourism in South Korea: Who, when, and why.
Wetlands Ecology and Management, 23(4), 779–787. doi:10.1007/s11273-015-9418-2
Fennell, D. A., Buckley, R., & Weaver, D. B. (2001). Policy and planning. The Encyclopedia of Ecotourism,463–477
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and research.
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Fordred, C. L., & Mearns, K. F. (2018). Community relationships and maintaining long-term support for protected
areas and ecotourism. Collaboration & Co-Creation Opportunities in Tourism, 40
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measure-
ment error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. doi:10.2307/3151312
French, S. S., Neuman-Lee, L. A., Terletzky, P. A., Kiriazis, N. M., Taylor, E. N., & DeNardo, D. F. (2017). Too much of a
good thing? Human disturbance linked to ecotourism has a “dose-dependent” impact on innate immunity and
oxidative stress in marine iguanas, Amblyrhynchus cristatus. Biological Conservation, 210, 37–47. doi:10.1016/j.bio-
con.2017.04.006
Ham, S. H., & Weiler, B. (2012). Interpretation as the centerpiece of sustainable wildlife tourism. Sustainable tourism
(pp. 35–44). Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann
Harrington, D. (2008). Confirmatory factor analysis. Oxford University Press, USA.
Hines, J. M., Hungerford, H. R., & Tomera, A. N. (1987). Analysis and synthesis of research on responsible environ-
mental behavior: A meta-analysis. The Journal of Environmental Education, 18(2), 1–8. doi:10.1080/00958964.1987.
9943482
Hoshie, Artist (2007). Korea, South-CIA WFB Map.png [Digital image]. Retrieved from Wikimedia Commons: https://
commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Korea,_South-CIA_WFB_Map.png#filelinks.
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria
versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. doi:10.1080/
10705519909540118
Hughes, K. (2013). Measuring the impact of viewing wildlife: Do positive intentions equate to long-term changes in
conservation behaviour? Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 21(1), 42–59. doi:10.1080/09669582.2012.681788
Hungerford, H. R., & Volk, T. L. (1990). Changing learner behavior through environmental education. The Journal of
Environmental Education, 21(3), 8–21. doi:10.1080/00958964.1990.10753743
Hwang, K., & Lee, J. (2018). Antecedents and consequences of ecotourism behavior: Independent and interdepend-
ent self-construals, ecological belief, willingness to pay for ecotourism services and satisfaction with life.
Sustainability, 10(3), 789.
Kil, N., Holland, S. M., & Stein, T. V. (2014). Structural relationships between environmental attitudes, recreation
motivations, and environmentally responsible behaviors. Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism, 7, 16–25.
doi:10.1016/j.jort.2014.09.010
Kim, M. S., Kim, J., & Thapa, B. (2018). Influence of environmental knowledge on affect, nature affiliation and pro-
environmental behaviors among tourists. Sustainability, 10(9), 3109.
Kim, K. H., & Park, D. B. (2017). Relationships among perceived value, satisfaction, and loyalty: Community-based
ecotourism in Korea. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 34(2), 171–191. doi:10.1080/10548408.2016.1156609
Kline, R. B. (2011). Convergence of structural equation modeling and multilevel modeling. In M. Williams (Ed.),
Handbook of methodological innovation (pp.562–589). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Knudson, D. M., Cable, T. T., & Beck, L. (2003). Interpretation for the 21st century (2nd ed.). State College, PA:
Venture.
Krajhanzl, J. (2010). Environmental and proenvironmental behavior. School and Health, 21, 251–274.
Jacobs, M. H., & Harms, M. (2014). Influence of interpretation on conservation intentions of whale tourists. Tourism
Management, 42, 123–131. doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2013.11.009
Lee, T. H. (2011). How recreation involvement, place attachment and conservation commitment affect environmen-
tally responsible behavior. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 19(7), 895–915. doi:10.1080/09669582.2011.570345
Lee, Y. S., Lawton, L. J., & Weaver, D. B. (2012). Evidence for a South Korean model of ecotourism. Journal of Travel
Research, 0047287512467703. doi:10.1177/0047287512467703
Lee, W. H., & Moscardo, G. (2005). Understanding the impact of ecotourism resort experiences on tourists’ environ-
mental attitudes and behavioural intentions. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 13(6), 546–565. doi:10.1080/
09669580508668581
Lee, T. H., Jan, F. H., & Yang, C. C. (2013). Conceptualizing and measuring environmentally responsible behaviors
from the perspective of community-based tourists. Tourism Management, 36, 454–468. doi:10.1016/j.tourman.
2012.09.012
Lee, T. H., & Jan, F. H. (2017). Ecotourism behavior of nature-based tourists: An integrative framework. Journal of
Travel Research, 57(6), 792-810.doi:10.1177/0047287517717350
Lenka, U., & Agarwal, S. (2015). Journal of Asia Business Studies. Journal of Asia Business Studies, 11, 451-465. doi:10.
1108/JABS-07-2015-0088
Liu, J., Qu, H., Huang, D., Chen, G., Yue, X., Zhao, X., & Liang, Z. (2014). The role of social capital in encouraging resi-
dents’ pro-environmental behaviors in community-based ecotourism. Tourism Management, 41, 190–201. doi:10.
1016/j.tourman.2013.08.016
Masud, M. M., Aldakhil, A. M., Nassani, A. A., & Azam, M. N. (2017). Community-based ecotourism management for
sustainable development of marine protected areas in Malaysia. Ocean & Coastal Management, 136, 104–112.
doi:10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2016.11.023
Moscardo, G. (1999). Making visitors mindful. Champaign, IL: Sagamore Publishing.
NAAEE (2018). North American Association for environmental education: About EE and why it matters. Retrieved from
https://naaee.org/about-us/about-ee-and-why-it-matters.
NAI (2018). National Association for Interpretation: What is interpretation? Retrieved from https://www.interpnet.com/
NAI/interp/About/About_Interpretation/nai/_About/what_is_interp.aspx?hkey=53b0bfb4-74a6-4cfc-8379-1d55847c2cb9.
Nilsson, A., Bergquist, M., & Schultz, W. P. (2017). Spillover effects in environmental behaviors, across time and con-
text: A review and research agenda. Environmental Education Research, 3, 1–17. doi:10.1080/13504622.2016.
1250148
Parcel, G. S. (1984). Theoretical models for application in school health education research. Journal of School Health,
54(6), 39–49. doi:10.1111/j.1746-1561.1984.tb09735.x
Powell, R. B., & Ham, S. H. (2008). Can ecotourism interpretation really lead to pro-conservation knowledge, atti-
tudes and behaviour? Evidence from the Galapagos Islands. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 16(4), 467–489. doi:
10.2167/jost797.0
Powell, R. B., Kellert, S. R., & Ham, S. H. (2009). Interactional theory and the sustainable nature-based tourism
experience. Society & Natural Resources, 22(8), 761–776. doi:10.1080/08941920802017560
Ramsar (2018). Ramsar Convention: Ramsar Sites Information Service. Retrieved from https://rsis.ramsar.org/ris/934.
Reed, M. S., Evely, A. C., Cundill, G., Fazey, I., Glass, J., Laing, A., … Stringer, L. C. (2010). What is social learning?
Ecology and Society, 15(4), doi:10.5751/ES-03564-1504r01
Rosenstock, I. M., Strecher, V. J., & Becker, M. H. (1988). Social learning theory and the health belief model. Health
Education Quarterly, 15(2), 175–183. doi:10.1177/109019818801500203
Sax, L. J., Gilmartin, S. K., & Bryant, A. N. (2003). Assessing response rates and nonresponse bias in web and paper
surveys. Research in Higher Education, 44(4), 409–432. doi:10.1023/A:1024232915870
Shannon, G., Larson, C. L., Reed, S. E., Crooks, K. R., & Angeloni, L. M. (2017). Ecological consequences of ecotourism
for wildlife populations and communities. In D. T. Blumstein, B. Geffroy, D. S.M. Samia, & E. Bessa (Eds.),
Ecotourism’s Promise and Peril (pp. 29–46). Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-
3-319-58331-0.
Skibins, J. C., Powell, R. B., & Stern, M. J. (2012). Exploring empirical support for interpretation’s best practices.
Journal of Interpretation Research, 17(1), 25–44.
Smith, L., Broad, S., & Weiler, B. (2008). A closer examination of the impact of zoo visits on visitor behaviour.
Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 16(5), 544–562. doi:10.2167/jost817.0
Smith-Sebasto, N. J., & D’Costa, A. (1995). Designing a Likert-type scale to predict environmentally responsible
behavior in undergraduate students: A multistep process. The Journal of Environmental Education, 27(1), 14–20.
doi:10.1080/00958964.1995.9941967
Sperber, A. D. (2004). Translation and validation of study instruments for cross-cultural research. Gastroenterology,
126, S124–S128. doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2003.10.016
Stein, T. V., Clark, J. K., & Rickards, J. L. (2003). Assessing nature’s role in ecotourism development in Florida:
Perspectives of tourism professionals and government decision-makers. Journal of Ecotourism, 2(3), 155–172.
Stephenson, P. J. (1993). The impacts of tourism on nature reserves in Madagascar: Perinet, a case-study.
Environmental Conservation, 20(3), 262–265. doi:10.1017/S0376892900023067
Stern, P. C. (2000). New environmental theories: Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior.
Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 407–424. doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00175
Stern, M., Powell, R., Martin, E., & McLean, K. (2012). Identifying best practices for live interpretive programs in the
United States National Park Service. Interpretive Development Program.
Stone, M. T. (2015). Community-based ecotourism: A collaborative partnerships perspective. Journal of Ecotourism,
14(2/3), 166–184. doi:10.1080/14724049.2015.1023309
Tilden, F. (1957). Interpreting our heritage: Principles and practices for visitor services in parks, museums, and historic
places. Chapel Hill, North Carolina: University of North Carolina Press.
Veverka, J. A. (2011). Interpretive master planning: Volume one: Strategies for the new millennium. Edinburgh,
Scotland: Museums.
Wearing, S., & Neil, J. (2009). Ecotourism: Impacts, potentials and possibilities?. Oxford, United Kingdom: Routledge.
Weaver, D. (2002). Asian ecotourism: Patterns and themes. Tourism Geographies, 4(2), 153–172. doi:10.1080/
14616680210124936
Weaver, D. B., & Lawton, L. J. (2007). Twenty years on: The state of contemporary ecotourism research. Tourism
Management, 28(5), 1168–1179. doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2007.03.004
Weiler, B., & Ham, S. H. (2002). Tour guide training: A model for sustainable capacity building in developing coun-
tries. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 10(1), 52–69. doi:10.1080/09669580208667152
Wolf, E. J., Harrington, K. M., Clark, S. L., & Miller, M. W. (2013). Sample size requirements for structural equation
models: An evaluation of power, bias. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 73(6), 913–934. doi:10.1177/
0013164413495237
Xu, H., Cui, Q., Sofield, T., & Li, F. M. S. (2014). Attaining harmony: Understanding the relationship between ecotour-
ism and protected areas in China. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 22(8), 1131–1150. doi:10.1080/09669582.2014.
902064

Fostering Environmental Behaviors Through

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Fostering Environmental Behaviors Through

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Sustainable Tourism

ISSN: 0966-9582 (Print) 1747-7646 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rsus20

Fostering environmental behaviors through

Benjamin A. B. Morse, Jennifer P. Carman & Michaela T. Zint

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2019.1647219

Published online: 08 Aug 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

Fostering environmental behaviors through

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

CONTACT Benjamin A. B. Morse babmorse@umich.edu

Ecotourism in South Korea

Ecotourism and environmentally responsible behavior (ERB)

Environmental education as “a process that helps individuals, communities, and organizations

Figure 1. Bandura’s (1986) adapted -Step Observational Learning Process.

Table 1. Ecotourist respondents’ demographics and background.

Table 3. Descriptive statistics for all factors.

Figure 4. Path analysis results of the Ecotourist Observational Learning Model.

Table 4. Summary of the direct and indirect effects path model.

Environmentally responsible behavioral intentions

Observational learning in ecotourism and its role in predicting ERB intentions

Implications for ecotourism programs

Implications for Korean ecotourism programs

You might also like