Dispositional Awe and Its Effect on Destination Residents’ Pro-Environmental Behavior Intention

Broaden-and-Build Theory

Broaden-and-Build theory provides a useful lens for explaining how positive emotions can produce durable psychological and behavioral consequences. This theory claims that positive emotions broaden individuals’ momentary thought-action repertoires and, over time, help build enduring psychological and cognitive resources that shape long-term behavior (Fredrickson, 2001). Unlike negative emotions that often narrow attention toward immediate survival concerns, positive emotions expand attention, increase cognitive flexibility, and encourage more flexible cognition and a more prosocial orientation (Bissing-Olson et al., 2013; Z. Lin et al., 2017; H. Zhang et al., 2024). This logic suggests that positive emotions may encourage individuals to move beyond narrow self-interest and consider broader collective and environmental concerns.

Tourism and environmental behavior studies have drawn on this theoretical logic to explain why positive emotional experiences may promote pro-environmental behavior. For example, daily positive emotions at work can predict employees’ pro-environmental behavior (Bissing-Olson et al., 2013), while restorative and positive tourism experiences can encourage visitors’ pro-environmental intentions by enhancing psychological resources such as wellbeing (H. Zhang et al., 2024). These studies support the view that positive emotions can motivate behaviors that benefit collective welfare, including environmentally responsible actions. However, Broaden-and-Build theory does not imply that positive emotions influence behavior only through immediate emotional reactions. Its central contribution lies in explaining how repeated emotional experiences may accumulate into more stable personal resources that shape subsequent behavior (Fredrickson, 2001).

Although the theory was originally developed to explain state positive emotions, its logic can also be extended to dispositional positive emotions. Individuals who are more prone to a specific positive emotion are likely to experience the corresponding broaden-and-build process more frequently and consistently across situations (Anderson et al., 2019; Cavanaugh et al., 2015; H. Zhao & Zhang, 2022). Over time, repeated emotional experiences may help build relatively stable orientations toward the self, others, and the natural world. This extension is particularly relevant to the present research because residents’ environmental actions are embedded in everyday life rather than limited to isolated tourism experiences. Applying Broaden-and-Build theory to this study can help clarify what kinds of psychological resources may be built by dispositional awe. Accordingly, we draw on this theory to explain how residents’ dispositional awe may translate into pro-environmental behavior.

Dispositional Awe

Awe can be understood both as a temporary emotional state and as a stable emotional disposition. State awe refers to a short-lived emotional response elicited by a specific stimulus (e.g., witnessing a stunning landscape) and typically fades once the stimulus ceases (Keltner & Haidt, 2003; L. Wang & Lyu, 2019). By contrast, dispositional awe refers to an individual’s stable tendency to experience wonder, admiration, and amazement across contexts and over time (Shiota et al., 2007). Individuals high in dispositional awe are more likely to notice beauty, vastness, and meaning in their everyday surroundings, even when others may take these experiences for granted (Anderson et al., 2019; Shiota et al., 2007; Z. Zhang & Li, 2024). This distinction is important because state awe may generate immediate behavioral responses, whereas dispositional awe may have more stable implications for behavior.

Existing tourism research has predominantly examined awe as a state emotion arising from specific tourism experiences. Studies have shown that state awe induced by natural or cultural tourism experiences can promote tourists’ or residents’ immediate pro-environmental behavior or intention (Su et al., 2025; Yan & Jia, 2021; H. Zhang & He, 2025; M. Zhao et al., 2022). This stream of research has generated valuable insights, yet its focus on momentary emotional experiences leaves two issues insufficiently addressed. First, state awe may fade after the awe-eliciting experience ends, making it less suitable for explaining sustained environmental behavior (Hicks, 2018; Keltner & Haidt, 2003). Second, residents’ relationships with destinations differ from tourists’ short-term encounters because residents repeatedly interact with local landscapes, cultural meanings, and environmental resources in everyday life. Therefore, residents’ pro-environmental behavior may be better understood through stable emotional tendencies rather than only temporary emotional states.

Dispositional awe is therefore a theoretically promising but underexamined antecedent of residents’ pro-environmental behavior. Prior research suggests that individuals higher in dispositional awe tend to display greater curiosity, humility, prosociality, and sustainable tendencies (Anderson et al., 2019; Jacobs & McConnell, 2022; Shiota et al., 2007). These findings indicate that dispositional awe may orient individuals toward entities larger than the self, including communities, places, and the natural world. However, tourism research has not yet systematically examined whether residents’ dispositional awe predicts their pro-environmental behavior intention. Addressing this gap can shift attention from tourists’ short-term emotional experiences to residents’ enduring emotional dispositions and their implications for destination sustainability.

Residents’ Pro-Environmental Behavior

Pro-environmental behavior refers to actions that conserve natural resources and maintain an environment’s ecological balance (M. T. Lin et al., 2022). In tourist destinations, such behavior includes saving water and energy, protecting wildlife, and advocating environmental initiatives (M. T. Lin et al., 2022; W. Liu et al., 2025). Because tourism development depends heavily on environmental quality while also placing pressure on local ecosystems, understanding the drivers of stakeholders’ pro-environmental behavior has become a central issue in sustainable tourism research (Confente & Scarpi, 2021; S. Wang et al., 2019; Wu et al., 2023; Zhang et al., 2014). Compared with tourists, residents occupy a distinctive position in destination sustainability (Confente & Scarpi, 2021; W. Liu et al., 2025; H. Zhang et al., 2025). Tourists are temporary users of destination resources, whereas residents are long-term actors whose everyday practices continuously shape the local environment (W. Liu et al., 2025; Safshekan et al., 2020). Even small daily behaviors among residents can accumulate into substantial environmental consequences over time. Residents may also influence tourists by signaling local behavioral norms and demonstrating acceptable ways of interacting with the environment (A. Liu et al., 2023; J. Wang & Wang, 2025; W. Wang et al., 2018). Thus, residents’ pro-environmental behavior is not only important for direct environmental protection but also for creating a broader sustainability climate within destinations.

Despite this importance, research on pro-environmental behavior in tourism has focused more extensively on tourists than on residents (Greene et al., 2023; M. T. Lin et al., 2022; W. Liu et al., 2025). Existing studies on residents’ pro-environmental behavior have contributed valuable explanations by emphasizing cognitive and normative antecedents, such as environmental values, beliefs, and personal norms (Confente & Scarpi, 2021; A. Liu et al., 2023; J. Wang et al., 2021; H. Zhang et al., 2024; Y. Zhang et al., 2014). These perspectives are useful, but they may not fully capture the emotional and experiential foundations of residents’ environmental engagement (White et al., 2019). Residents’ relationships with destinations are developed through repeated lived experiences and everyday interactions with local environments (Junot et al., 2018; Nieto-García et al., 2024). Accordingly, emotional factors may provide an important complementary explanation for why residents engage in pro-environmental behavior (W. Liu et al., 2025; Tezer & Bodur, 2019).

In this respect, dispositional awe offers a valuable lens for understanding residents’ pro-environmental behavior. From a Broaden-and-Build perspective, residents who are more prone to awe may build enduring psychological resources over time, which may support greater concerns for destination environments (Fredrickson, 2001). This argument responds to recent calls for greater attention to emotional and trait-level antecedents of residents’ pro-environmental behavior (W. Liu et al., 2025). Building on this reasoning, the present study examines whether dispositional awe is associated with residents’ pro-environmental behavior intention and then explores how this relationship can be explained.

Hypothesis Development

Awe is a self-transcendent emotion that promotes prosocial behaviors (Anderson et al., 2019). While direct evidence linking dispositional awe to pro-environmental behavior is limited, state awe has been shown to encourage such actions (Huang et al., 2026; Su et al., 2025; H. Zhang & He, 2025; Y. Zhang et al., 2025). According to the basic assumption of dispositional awe, dispositional awe should have greater cognitive or behavioral consequences than state awe (Shiota et al., 2007). Therefore, we argue that individuals with a tendency to feel awe would exhibit stronger pro-environmental behavior intention (Anderson et al., 2019). Given their regular ritualized interactions with awe-eliciting natural environments, Tibetan residents are likely to exhibit elevated dispositional awe, which further leads to higher pro-environmental behavior intention. Thus, we hypothesize:

Measures

The survey of this study comprised two sections: construct measures and demographics. The first section used well-established measures adapted to the Tibetan context. Dispositional awe was assessed with a 6-item measure from Shiota et al. (2006), and pro-environmental behavior intention with an 8-item measure from Olya and Akhshik (2019), both using 7-point Likert scales (1 = strongly disagree; 7 = strongly agree). Because the term “awe” in the dispositional awe measure may be unfamiliar to some respondents, we provided a brief definition immediately before the item. Specifically, respondents were instructed that “awe refers to a feeling of amazement and reverence when encountering something beautiful or powerful” (Keltner & Haidt, 2003). The adapted measures are detailed in Supplemental Appendix 1. Considering that some Tibetan residents speak Mandarin but may not read Chinese fluently, the survey underwent a rigorous translation process. After translating the English questionnaire into Chinese, back-translation was conducted for semantic accuracy. Bilingual Tibetan experts then translated the questionnaire into Tibetan and conducted a back-translation to ensure readability and cultural appropriateness. A pretest with 30 Tibetan students showed Cronbach’s alpha above .70 for all constructs, confirming the reliability of the adapted questionnaire.

Data Collection

Data were collected from Tibetan residents in October 2023 via the Wenjuan online platform (https://www.wenjuan.com). The questionnaire for Tibetan residents was available in both Chinese and Tibetan. An instructional attention check was embedded (e.g., To show you are paying attention, please select “1”). A total of 234 responses were initially collected from Tibetan residents. After excluding responses that failed attention checks, exhibited extreme values, or had IP mismatches (e.g., residents outside Xizang), 194 responses were retained.

Data Analysis

We first computed descriptive statistics (see Tables 1 and 2) and reliability coefficients using SPSS. To examine whether dispositional awe varied by length of residence, we computed a dispositional awe index by averaging the six items and compared the three residency groups. Given the highly unequal group sizes, we used Welch’s ANOVA. We then used partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) to assess both the measurement and structural models.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Demographic Information of Tibetan Residents in Study 1 (N = 194).

Variable	Frequency	Percentage	Variable	Frequency	Percentage
Gender			Occupation
Male	95	49.0	Student	55	28.4
Female	99	51.0	Civil servant	58	29.9
Age			Corporate manager	11	5.7
18–25	83	42.8	Office staff	20	10.3
26–35	72	37.1	Professional	34	16.5
36–45	28	14.4	Manual worker	3	1.5
46–55	8	4.1	Service worker	1	0.5
>55	3	1.5	Self-employed	0	0
Education			Freelancer	4	2.1
≤Primary school	1	0.5	Agricultural worker	1	0.5
Junior high school	12	6.2	Retired	6	3.1
Senior high school	25	12.9	Unemployed	0	0
Junior college	47	24.2	Others	1	0.5
Bachelor’s degree	85	43.8
≥Master’s degree	24	12.4
Length of residence
≤1 year	0	0
1–3 years	2	1.0
4–10 years	37	19.1
≥10 years	155	79.9

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 2.

Descriptive Analysis of Each Construct and Item in the Tibetan Resident Sample in Study 1 (N = 194).

Constructs	Mean	S.D.	S.E.	Kurtosis	Skewness
Dispositional Awe (DA)
DA1	5.90	1.204	0.086	1.229	−1.113
DA2	5.95	1.102	0.079	2.421	−1.361
DA3	5.69	1.114	0.080	−0.436	−0.0523
DA4	5.52	1.197	0.086	−0.060	−0.642
DA5	6.06	1.118	0.080	3.076	−1.539
DA6	5.79	1.234	0.089	0.904	−1.022
Self-reported Pro-environmental Behavior Intention (SPEBI)
SPEBI1	5.68	1.260	0.090	0.619	−0.996
SPEBI2	5.77	1.183	0.085	0.911	−1.069
SPEBI3	5.50	1.264	0.091	1.250	−0.995
SPEBI4	6.03	1.221	0.088	3.855	−1.802
SPEBI5	5.49	1.320	0.095	0.577	−0.837
SPEBI6	5.92	1.221	0.088	1.865	−1.438
SPEBI7	5.85	1.281	0.092	2.180	−1.391
SPEBI8	5.84	1.209	0.087	1.309	−1.182

Results

Dispositional awe was numerically higher among long-term residents (Group 3, ≥10 years) than among the other groups: Group 1 (1–3 years; N = 2), M = 5.33, SD = 0.06; Group 2 (4–10 years; N = 37), M = 5.64, SD = 1.57; Group 3 (N = 155), M = 5.87, SD = 0.79. However, this difference was not statistically significant, Welch’s F(2, 3.50) = 3.81, p = .132. Games-Howell post-hoc comparisons also indicated no statistically significant pairwise differences: Group 1 versus Group 2 (p = .510, 95% CI [−1.12, 0.50]), Group 1 versus Group 3 (p = .238, 95% CI [−2.26, 1.19]), and Group 2 versus Group 3 (p = .568, 95% CI [−0.75, 0.31]). Considering the extremely small size of the “1–3 years” group (N = 2), these results should be interpreted as descriptive rather than conclusive evidence of residency-related differences in dispositional awe.

Item means of dispositional awe ranged from 5.52 to 6.06, while the standard deviation values ranged from 1.102 to 1.234. These results indicated that Tibetan residents generally exhibit a high level of dispositional awe, but variability still exists. The measurement model indicated good model fit: the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) was 0.077 (below the 0.08 threshold), all item loadings were higher than 0.7. Moreover, Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability values of both dispositional awe and pro-environmental behavior intention were above 0.8. Average variance extracted (AVE) values for both constructs were higher than 0.5. The heterotrait-monotrait (HTMT) ratio was 0.647, and the square roots of AVE exceeded inter-construct correlation (Hair et al., 2019). All variance inflation factor (VIF) values were below 5, indicating no multicollinearity concerns. In the structural model, dispositional awe explained 38.2% of the variance in pro-environmental behavior intention (R² = .382). Dispositional awe was significantly related to pro-environmental behavior intention (coefficient = 0.618, p < .001), supporting Hypothesis 1.

Discussion

Study 1 supports the rationale that Tibetan residents are a theoretically and empirically valid population for studying dispositional awe and pro-environmental behavior. The findings showed that Tibetan residents have a relatively high level of dispositional awe and that dispositional awe positively predicts pro-environmental behavior intention among residents. However, existing literature has not provided sufficient insights into developing hypotheses about the mechanisms underlying the link between dispositional awe and pro-environmental behavior intention. Therefore, based on Study 1, we conducted Study 2 to explore why and how residents’ dispositional awe translates into pro-environmental behavior.

Data Collection

Purposive sampling was used to ensure a diverse participant pool in terms of age, gender, livelihood, and city of residence. Fifteen residents (9 males, 6 females; ages 20–64), all of whom had lived in Xizang for over 20 years, were recruited from both urban and rural areas, as well as from cultural and natural tourist destinations. Interviews were conducted between November and December 2023. Twelve interviews were held online and three face-to-face in Lhasa, each lasting 60 to 90 min. All interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed with participants’ consent. Data saturation was reached at the 15th interview since no new codes or themes emerged. Participant profiles are summarized in Table 3. We developed a concise interview protocol to guide the interviews (see Table 4). Because concepts such as “dispositional awe” and “pro-environmental behavior” are abstract, interview questions were designed to elicit participants’ narratives on daily experiences without using academic terminology. The protocol covered five experience-based topics: emotional feelings toward nature, the personal meaning ascribed to nature, activities involving nature, knowledge about nature, and pro-environmental actions and motivations. Participants were also invited to share and discuss their attitudes, daily practices, and knowledge concerning nature, as well as their past sustainable behaviors and future intentions. Open-ended probes were used throughout to elicit rich narratives.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 3.

Profiles of Interview Participants.

Name	Age	Gender	Education	Occupation	Residential city	Residency
P-01	24	Male	Bachelor	Student	Lhasa	Lifelong resident
P-02	36	Female	Master	Teacher	Lhasa	Lifelong resident
P-03	42	Male	PhD	Professor	Lhasa	Lifelong resident
P-04	40	Female	Bachelor	Civil servant	Lhasa	Lifelong resident
P-05	27	Female	Bachelor	Journalist	Lhasa	Lifelong resident
P-06	33	Male	Bachelor	Civil servant	Shigatse	Lifelong resident
P-07	20	Male	Bachelor	Student	Shigatse	Lifelong resident
P-08	22	Female	Bachelor	Office staff	Shigatse	Lifelong resident
P-09	32	Female	Bachelor	Civil servant	Nyingchi	Lifelong resident
P-10	37	Male	Bachelor	Civil servant	Nagqu	Lifelong resident
P-11	33	Male	Bachelor	Civil servant	Nagqu	Lifelong resident
P-12	64	Female	High school	Freelancer	Qamdo	Lifelong resident
P-13	52	Male	High school	Freelancer	Qamdo	Lifelong resident
P-14	63	Male	Primary school	Retired	Ngari	Lifelong resident
P-15	41	Male	Bachelor	Doctor	Shannan	Lifelong resident

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 4.

Semi-Structured Interview Protocol in Study 2.

Targets	Main interview questions	Typical probes
Emotional feelings toward local nature	“Can you share a memorable experience in nature that deeply moved you or remained vivid to you?”	“Where were you and what did you feel at the time?” “Do such moments happen often in your life?”
Personal meaning ascribed to nature	“What does the natural environment around your home mean to you?”	“Have your feelings toward it changed over time?”
Activities involving nature	“In your daily life, what kinds of activities involve the natural environment (e.g., land, water, or mountains) near where you live?”	“Are these activities important to you or your family? Why?”
Knowledge on nature	“What knowledge did you learn about nature when you were growing up? And how?”	“What influences do such knowledge have on you?”
Pro-environmental actions and motivations	“Have you ever done something in your daily life to protect the local environment?”	“What motivates you to do these?”

Data Analysis

We used thematic analysis to analyze the interview transcripts, following the six-phase guideline proposed by Braun and Clarke (2006). The purpose of this qualitative analysis was exploratory. The interviews were used to generate candidate explanatory pathways for subsequent quantitative testing. This use of qualitative inquiry is consistent with mixed-method research design, in which qualitative findings can inform the development of constructs, relationships, and models that were later examined through quantitative analysis (Magrizos et al., 2020; Taheri & Okumus, 2023). Guided by our research question and Broaden-and-Build theory, the analysis followed an iterative process. In phase 1, transcripts were read in-depth for a thorough familiarization. In phase 2, initial codes were generated following a “data-driven” approach. As many initial codes as possible were generated to avoid missing important insights. In phase 3, codes were categorized into broader themes or sub-themes, guided by Broaden-and-Build theory. Phases 4 and 5 involved refining, defining, and linking themes. We focused on identifying concepts that can explain how dispositional awe translates into pro-environmental behavior, ensuring that only those directly relevant were retained. Links between finalized themes were identified. All themes were defined based on the data and the literature, each with sufficient supporting quotes. In phase 6, we generated a thematic map (see Figure 1) to show the coding structure and developed the hypotheses based on the qualitative findings and the literature. To minimize subjective bias, two researchers coded and identified themes independently. Any discrepancies were resolved through reflective discussion with a third researcher. This coding process was iterative, involving constant refinement and movement between the stages of analysis to ensure that emerging insights were both empirically grounded and theoretically meaningful.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

Thematic map describing the coding structure in Study 2.

Findings From Thematic Analysis

The qualitative findings confirm that dispositional awe is a salient and stable feature of Tibetan residents. Residents described dispositional awe as an enduring reverence for their homeland’s mountains, rivers, and sacred sites. For example, one participant (P-01) stated, “Our reverence for the sacred mountains and lakes is very common . . . This awareness came from the environment when we were young, and over time, it is internalized into our character and trait.” Similarly, another participant (P-04) described repeated awe experiences during ordinary encounters with nature: “Every time I go to Guolinka (a local traditional activity in a natural environment), have a meal by the river, listen to songs, or watch yaks graze . . . I feel deeply relaxed and close to nature, like being embraced by the sacred mountains and lakes.” These narratives highlight dispositional awe as intrinsic to both personal and cultural identity, aligning with Shiota et al.’s (2006) conception of dispositional awe as a stable tendency to appreciate nature’s beauty and vastness.

The findings further show that dispositional awe is closely connected with residents’ pro-environmental behavior. As one participant (P-01) stated: “The Tibetan epic ‘King Gesar’ describes how Tibetan people, over time, developed a value system of respect for nature. These stories were passed down through elders who taught us what to do and what to avoid to protect nature.” Such a narrative reflects the close relationship between dispositional awe and respect for nature. Dispositional awe originating from family education also motivates Tibetan residents’ daily sustainable practices: “Since childhood, my grandparents taught us to live in harmony with nature . . . After a barbecue, we had to clean up all the garbage to avoid offending the gods of river, fire, and tree. Otherwise, we might get strange skin diseases or other illnesses” (P-13). Similarly, another participant (P-02) recalled, “Our elders taught us to respect all living things. For example, we were told not to litter, or we would be punished and both ourselves and our livestock would get sick.”

Consistent with Broaden-and-Build theory, these findings suggest that repeated experiences of awe may broaden residents’ attention beyond the narrow self and help build enduring psychological resources that shape environmental cognition and behavior (Fredrickson, 2001). In particular, our participants connected repeated awe experiences with a broader sense of being part of nature, belonging to Xizang, and relying on the local environment for livelihood and valued activities. These narratives correspond to three theoretically meaningful resources: connectedness to nature as a relational and emotional resource, place identity as a cognitive and symbolic resource, and place dependence as a functional resource. We treat these resources as candidate explanatory pathways from dispositional awe to pro-environmental behavior. The proposed mediation model is shown in Figure 2.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 2.

Proposed model.

Development of Research Hypotheses

Building on the qualitative insights, we conceptualize connectedness to nature, place identity, and place dependence as three resources through which dispositional awe may translate into pro-environmental behavior. Based on Broaden-and-Build theory, these resources represent different ways in which repeated awe may broaden residents’ attention and build enduring relationships with the destination environment. Connectedness to nature captures residents’ felt emotional “oneness” with the natural world, place identity reflects cognitive and symbolic identification with Xizang as “home,” and place dependence denotes the extent to which residents rely on Xizang to meet functional needs such as livelihood, wellbeing, and opportunities for valued activities.

Discussion

Study 2 used a qualitative approach to explore how Tibetan residents’ dispositional awe translates into pro-environmental behavior. Extending Study 1, the interviews show that dispositional awe is a salient and stable trait rooted in long-term socialization, cultural narratives, and routine encounters with sacred sites. These findings support the relevance of dispositional awe in this context. More importantly, Study 2 provided insights into the possible mechanisms underlying the relationship between dispositional awe and pro-environmental behavior. The qualitative findings reveal how residents narratively connect their repeated awe experiences with environmental protection through three psychological resources: connectedness to nature, place identity, and place dependence. These insights informed the development of the conceptual model tested in subsequent Studies 3 and 4. Among the three candidate pathways, connectedness to nature and place identity appeared in participants’ narratives as relatively consistent motivations for pro-environmental behavior. By contrast, place dependence emerged as more ambivalent. Some residents viewed dependence on the local environment as a reason to protect it, whereas others described tensions between environmental protection and immediate livelihood needs. This qualitative ambiguity is theoretically important because it suggests that place dependence may not function as a uniformly positive driver of pro-environmental behavior. Study 3 therefore formally tests the relative roles of these three pathways in a larger survey sample.

Measures

This study tests the proposed model using self-reported survey data. The questionnaire consisted of two sections: measurement of constructs and demographic information. Measures for dispositional awe and pro-environmental behavior intention were the same as those in Study 1. It is noteworthy that given the nature of the self-reported approach and intention-behavior gap, pro-environmental behavior intention used in Studies 1 and 3 is a proxy measure of concrete pro-environmental behavior (Nieto-García et al., 2024). Connectedness to nature was assessed using a 7-item measure adapted from Pearce et al. (2022), while place identity (6 items) and place dependence (7 items) were assessed using measures from Strzelecka et al. (2017). All items used a 7-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree). The adapted measures employed are detailed in the Supplemental File. As in Study 1, the questionnaire in Study 3 was strictly translated into Chinese and Tibetan to accommodate participants’ linguistic diversity.

Data Collection

Data were collected from January to April 2024 using the Wenjuan online survey platform (https://www.wenjuan.com). To ensure data quality, we embedded the same instructional attention check as Study 1 and included reverse-coded items to detect inattentive or random responses. Of the 480 responses received, cases that failed attention checks, and responses from IP addresses outside Xizang were excluded, resulting in 424 valid responses. The sample had a higher proportion of female respondents (54.0%). Over 80% of participants had a higher education background, and 75.2% had lived in Xizang for over 10 years.

Common Method Bias

To mitigate common method bias, we implemented procedural and statistical remedies (Kock, 2015). We emphasized confidentiality and the academic purpose of the study to reduce social desirability bias. Key constructs, such as pro-environmental behavior intention, were not directly mentioned to minimize bias from participants’ perceptions of the research objectives. Reverse-coded items were included to enhance response quality. Statistically, all VIF values were below 5, indicating the absence of multicollinearity. Harman’s single-factor test revealed that the primary factor accounted for 48.856% of variance, below the 50% threshold, suggesting that common method bias was not a serious concern (Kock, 2015).

Data Analysis

Descriptive analyses were performed in SPSS, with results presented in Tables 5 and 6. Reverse-coded items (CTN3, CTN4, CTN7) were adjusted before analysis. Consistent with Study 1, dispositional awe was compared across residency groups using Welch’s ANOVA given the unequal group sizes. Hypotheses were tested in SmartPLS 4, following standard procedures to evaluate both measurement and structural models (Hair et al., 2019). Construct reliability and validity were assessed prior to examining structural relationships among variables.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 5.

Demographic Information of Tibetan Residents in Study 3 (N = 424).

Variable	Frequency	Percentage	Variable	Frequency	Percentage
Gender			Occupation
Male	195	46	Student	110	25.9
Female	229	54	Civil servant	114	26.9
Age			Corporate manager	31	7.3
18–25	139	32.8	Office staff	44	10.4
26–35	150	35.4	Professional staff (e.g., doctor and lawyer)	76	17.9
36–45	74	17.5	Manual worker	7	1.7
46–55	50	11.8	Service worker	2	0.5
>55	11	2.6	Self-employed	6	1.4
Education			Freelancer	14	3.3
≤Primary school	5	1.2	Agricultural worker	5	1.2
Junior high school	3	0.7	Retired	6	1.4
Senior high school	14	3.3	Unemployed	7	1.7
Junior college	63	14.9	Others	2	0.5
Bachelor’s degree	272	64.2
≥Master’s degree	67	15.8
Length of residence
≤1 year	0	0
1–3 years	10	2.4
4–10 years	95	22.4
≥10 years	319	75.2

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 6.

Descriptive Analysis of Each Construct and Item in Study 3 (N = 424).

Constructs	Mean	S.D.	Kurtosis	Skewness	S.E.	VIF
Dispositional Awe (DA)
DA1	6.288	1.085	5.066	−2.038	0.053	3.153
DA2	6.252	1.064	5.326	−2.026	0.052	4.156
DA3	6.057	1.182	1.781	−1.373	0.057	3.168
DA4	5.991	1.176	1.390	−1.223	0.057	3.027
DA5	6.311	1.029	5.142	−2.047	0.050	4.022
DA6	6.224	1.068	3.455	−1.703	0.052	3.477
Connectedness to Nature (CTN)
CTN1	5.788	1.373	0.509	−1.041	0.067	4.021
CTN2	5.849	1.303	0.922	−1.129	0.063	4.068
CTN3	5.830	1.109	−0.962	−0.461	0.054	2.150
CTN4	5.693	1.077	−0.971	−0.286	0.052	2.246
CTN5	5.785	1.295	0.263	−0.922	0.063	2.519
CTN6	5.710	1.313	0.077	−0.832	0.064	2.150
CTN7	5.870	1.064	−0.654	−0.529	0.052	1.742
Place Identity (PI)
PI1	6.410	1.100	7.859	−2.639	0.053	1.771
PI2	6.361	1.070	6.296	−2.298	0.052	2.943
PI3	6.222	1.128	4.657	−1.970	0.055	3.378
PI4	6.354	1.061	5.283	−2.172	0.052	4.684
PI5	6.358	1.013	4.806	−2.019	0.049	4.701
PI6	6.337	1.024	4.450	−1.955	0.050	3.308
Place Dependence (PD)
PD1	5.160	1.670	−0.469	−0.584	0.081	3.637
PD2	5.083	1.678	−0.591	−0.533	0.082	4.153
PD3	5.467	1.628	−0.052	−0.877	0.079	2.978
PD4	5.632	1.491	0.415	−0.994	0.072	2.440
PD5	5.340	1.607	−0.234	−0.738	0.078	2.651
PD6	5.012	1.745	−0.502	−0.582	0.085	2.770
PD7	4.575	1.960	−1.026	−0.293	0.095	3.041
Self-reported Pro-environmental Behavior Intention (SPEBI)
SPEBI1	5.988	1.181	1.618	−1.298	0.057	3.462
SPEBI2	6.134	1.098	2.295	−1.491	0.053	3.543
SPEBI3	5.988	1.187	2.279	−1.397	0.058	4.029
SPEBI4	6.215	1.054	3.493	−1.673	0.051	3.891
SPEBI5	5.783	1.341	0.985	−1.131	0.065	2.742
SPEBI6	6.125	1.089	1.944	−1.406	0.053	3.135
SPEBI7	6.099	1.149	2.257	−1.468	0.056	4.209
SPEBI8	6.031	1.164	1.557	−1.311	0.057	2.631

Results

Measurement Model

The measurement model demonstrated strong reliability and validity. All item loadings exceeded 0.7, indicating acceptable item reliability. The SRMR value was 0.065, below the 0.08 threshold, suggesting a good model fit. All constructs had Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability values above 0.7, demonstrating high internal consistency. Convergent validity was confirmed with AVE values above 0.5 for all constructs (Table 7). Discriminant validity was evaluated using the Fornell-Larcker criterion and the HTMT. As illustrated in Table 8, the square roots of the AVE for each construct exceeded the inter-construct correlations, and all HTMT ratios were below 0.85, indicating adequate discriminant validity (Hair et al., 2019).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 7.

Measurement Model Test Results.

Items	Loading	Cronbach’s alpha	Composite reliability (CR)	Average variance extracted (AVE)
DA1–DA6	0.850–0.915	.941	0.941	0.771
CTN1–CTN7	0.706–0.860	.904	0.911	0.635
PI1–PI6	0.750–0.917	.934	0.934	0.754
PD1–PD7	0.822–0.881	.936	0.945	0.722
SPEBI1–SPEBI8	0.789–0.897	.946	0.948	0.726

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 8.

Discriminant Validity.

Constructs	Fornell-Larcker criterion					Heterotrait-monotrait ratio
	DA	CTN	PI	PD	SPEBI	DA	CTN	PI	PD
DA	0.878
CTN	0.667	0.797				0.718
PI	0.767	0.544	0.868			0.816	0.586
PD	0.442	0.634	0.332	0.850		0.459	0.666	0.339
SPEBI	0.778	0.692	0.660	0.431	0.852	0.821	0.746	0.695	0.452

Note. The diagonal values are the square root of the AVE.

Structural Model

The structural model demonstrated strong explanatory power, explaining substantial variance in key constructs: connectedness to nature (R² = .445), place identity (R² = .588), place dependence (R² = .196), and pro-environmental behavior intention (R² = .667). All Q² values were above zero, indicating sufficient predictive relevance (Hair et al., 2019). The direct effects are outlined in Table 9. Dispositional awe had a significant positive relationship with pro-environmental behavior intention (coefficient = 0.479, p < .001), confirming Hypothesis 1. Dispositional awe also had positive and significant relationships with connectedness to nature (coefficient = 0.667, p < .001), place identity (coefficient = 0.767, p < .001), and place dependence (coefficient = 0.442, p < .001), supporting hypotheses 2a, 3a, and 4a. Furthermore, connectedness to nature (coefficient = 0.320, p < .001) and place identity (coefficient = 0.127, p < .01) were positively related to pro-environmental behavior intention, supporting hypotheses 2b and 3b. However, place dependence was not significantly related to pro-environmental behavior intention (coefficient = −0.025, p > .05), so Hypothesis 4b was not supported.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 9.

Hypotheses Testing Results (n = 424).

Hypotheses	Path coefficient	t-Value	p-Value	Results
H1: DA→SPEBI	0.479***	8.572	.000	Supported
H2a: DA→CTN	0.667***	18.255	.000	Supported
H2b: CTN→SPEBI	0.320***	6.299	.000	Supported
H2c: DA→CTN→SPEBI	0.213***	5.822	.000	Supported
H3a: DA→PI	0.767***	20.540	.000	Supported
H3b: PI→SPEBI	0.127**	2.884	.004	Supported
H3c: DA→PI→SPEBI	0.097**	2.810	.005	Supported
H4a: DA→PD	0.442***	10.230	.000	Supported
H4b: PD→SPEBI	−0.025	0.679	.497	Not supported
H4c: DA→PD→SPEBI	−0.011	0.675	.500	Not supported

***

p < .001. **p < .01.

Indirect effects showed that connectedness to nature (coefficient = 0.213, p < .001) and place identity (coefficient = 0.097, p < .01) significantly mediated the relationship between dispositional awe and pro-environmental behavior intention. Therefore, hypotheses 2c and 3c were supported. However, place dependence did not show a significant mediation (coefficient = −0.011, p > .05). Thus, Hypothesis 4c was not supported. The presence of significant direct and indirect effects indicates that connectedness to nature and place identity partially mediate the relationship between dispositional awe and pro-environmental behavior intention (Figure 3).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 3.

Model results of Study 3.

Discussion

Study 3 used a survey sample (424 Tibetan residents) to formally examine the model developed from Study 2. This design allowed us to assess which candidate pathways were empirically supported and to compare their relative explanatory power. Consistent with Study 1, Study 3 confirmed a positive relationship between dispositional awe and self-reported pro-environmental behavior intention. Furthermore, the study confirmed positive associations between dispositional awe and connectedness to nature, place identity, and place dependence. The findings also supported the positive links between connectedness to nature/place identity and pro-environmental behavior intention. However, place dependence did not significantly relate to self-reported pro-environmental behavior intention. This inconsistency highlights the complexity of place dependence as shown in prior studies and our qualitative insights (Ramkissoon et al., 2013; Tonge et al., 2015). Considering the potential self-report bias and the intention-behavior gap issue in Study 3 (Nieto-García et al., 2024), we adopted a peer-reported approach to measure observed behavior in subsequent Study 4 for further validation.

Measures

The questionnaire in Study 4 comprised three sections: (1) participants’ own dispositional awe, connectedness to nature, place identity, and place dependence; (2) peer-reported pro-environmental behavior; (3) and demographic information. Measures for the first section were identical to those in Study 3. Peer-reported pro-environmental behavior was assessed by adapting the measures from Olya and Akhshik (2019) for participants to rate their friends’ observed pro-environmental behavior. For example, “based on my understanding, in daily life, he/she tries to protect local resources as much as he/she can.” Although the peer-reported approach is not fully objective, it has been widely used in sustainable behavior research as a quasi-objective indicator that reduces self-report bias (Kormos & Gifford, 2014). Consistent with Study 3, the questionnaires were rigorously translated and presented in both Chinese and Tibetan.

Data Collection

A total of 194 undergraduate students voluntarily participated in exchange for a monetary reward (approximately $0.7). To ensure accurate peer assessment, participants signed up in pairs of previously acquainted friends. Upon arrival at the designated classroom, each paired “friend group” was seated apart to maintain confidentiality and prevent influence during survey completion. The researcher introduced the study as an investigation on “cognition and behavior,” with informed consent obtained. Each participant assessed their own dispositional awe, connectedness to nature, place identity, and place dependence, as well as their friends’ pro-environmental behavior. Peer reports were then matched accordingly. This step allowed peer-reported pro-environmental behavior scores to be accurately aligned with each corresponding participant. Consistent with Study 3, an instructional attention check and reverse-coded items were included in the self-report survey. Cases with extreme values or failed attention checks were removed, resulting in 182 valid samples.

Data Analysis

Data analysis for Study 4 followed the same process as Study 3. We did not conduct a group comparison by residency because the sample exhibited minimal variability in residence length (98.9% reported ≥10 years). Descriptive statistics were computed in SPSS after recoding reverse items (CTN3, CTN4, CTN7). The results are presented in Tables 10 and 11. SmartPLS 4 was used for hypothesis testing, evaluating both the measurement and structural models (Hair et al., 2019).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 10.

Demographic Information of Tibetan Students in Study 4 (N = 182).

Variable	Frequency	Percentage	Variable	Frequency	Percentage
Gender			Residence
Male	88	48.4	≤1 year	0	0
Female	94	51.6	1–3 years	0	0
Age			4–10 years	2	1.1
18–25	178	97.8	≥10 years	180	98.9
26–35	4	2.2

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 11.

Descriptive Analysis of Each Construct and Item in Study 4 (N = 182).

Constructs	Mean	S.D.	Kurtosis	Skewness	S.E.	VIF
Dispositional Awe (DA)
DA1	6.315	0.914	5.443	−1.764	0.068	1.550
DA2	6.138	0.903	4.619	−1.413	0.067	1.988
DA3	5.768	0.998	0.050	−0.495	0.074	1.499
DA4	5.575	1.078	0.589	−0.555	0.080	1.506
DA5	6.204	0.878	1.135	−1.105	0.065	1.541
DA6	6.039	0.966	3.187	−1.229	0.072	1.518
Connectedness to Nature (CTN)
CTN1	6.094	0.871	1.057	−0.740	0.065	1.599
CTN2	6.110	0.827	1.898	−0.860	0.062	1.709
CTN3	5.884	0.856	1.223	−0.627	0.064	1.736
CTN4	5.762	0.782	1.821	−0.461	0.058	1.676
CTN5	5.762	0.901	2.866	−0.656	0.067	1.466
CTN6	5.845	0.897	3.775	−1.032	0.067	1.677
CTN7	5.812	0.813	2.221	−0.761	0.061	1.474
Place Identity (PI)
PI1	6.602	0.756	16.43	−3.141	0.056	2.184
PI2	6.514	0.718	2.447	−1.496	0.053	1.636
PI3	6.514	0.784	12.79	−2.649	0.058	2.477
PI4	6.530	0.732	3.338	−1.723	0.055	1.912
PI5	6.497	0.858	3.878	−1.844	0.064	2.127
PI6	6.475	0.762	5.874	−1.879	0.057	1.702
Place Dependence (PD)
PD1	5.519	1.251	0.690	−0.821	0.093	2.035
PD2	5.420	1.240	0.740	−0.824	0.092	2.446
PD3	5.939	1.334	1.534	−1.393	0.099	2.049
PD4	5.906	1.197	1.476	−1.162	0.089	1.546
PD5	5.729	1.203	0.203	−0.868	0.090	1.494
PD6	5.077	1.416	−0.476	−0.350	0.106	1.812
PD7	4.508	1.657	−0.907	−0.088	0.124	1.689
Peer-reported Pro-environmental Behavior (PPEB)
PPEB1	5.928	1.057	1.666	−1.017	0.079	2.130
PPEB2	5.983	0.901	−0.584	−0.516	0.067	1.724
PPEB3	5.939	0.917	−0.357	−0.528	0.068	1.954
PPEB4	6.160	0.881	0.374	−0.907	0.066	1.844
PPEB5	5.829	0.951	0.273	−0.544	0.071	1.643
PPEB6	6.204	0.968	4.443	−1.639	0.072	1.707
PPEB7	6.072	0.880	0.571	−0.829	0.066	1.814
PPEB8	6.077	0.913	−0.018	−0.769	0.068	1.525

Results

Measurement Model

The measurement model demonstrated good overall fit, with an SRMR of 0.067. Most items displayed factor loadings above 0.7, confirming adequate item reliability. All VIF values were below 3, thus multicollinearity was not a concern. Internal consistency reliability was confirmed, with composite reliability (CR) and Cronbach’s alpha exceeding 0.8 for all constructs. Convergent validity was established, as AVE values for each construct exceeded 0.5. Discriminant validity was also established, as the square roots of AVE for all constructs exceeded their correlations with other constructs, and all HTMT ratios below 0.85 (Tables 12 and 13).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 12.

Measurement Model Test Results.

Items	Loading	Cronbach’s alpha	Composite reliability (CR)	Average variance extracted (AVE)
DA1–DA6	0.669–0.815	.816	0.819	0.522
CTN1–CTN7	0.663–0.749	.835	0.837	0.503
PI1–PI6	0.710–0.847	.875	0.882	0.617
PD1–PD7	0.665–0.811	.858	0.868	0.545
PPEB1–PPEB8	0.790–0.899	.869	0.876	0.522

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 13.

Discriminant Validity.

Constructs	Fornell-Larcker criterion					Heterotrait-monotrait ratio
	DA	CTN	PI	PD	PPEB	DA	CTN	PI	PD
DA	0.723
CTN	0.631	0.709				0.761
PI	0.613	0.567	0.786			0.719	0.660
PD	0.367	0.325	0.322	0.738		0.442	0.386	0.373
PPEB	0.599	0.627	0.553	0.242	0.722	0.701	0.721	0.618	0.277

Note. The diagonal values are the square root of the AVE.

Structural Model

The structural model explained significant variance in connectedness to nature (R² = .399), place identity (R² = .375), place dependence (R² = .135), and peer-reported pro-environmental behavior (R² = .484). Predictive relevance was established, with all Q² values above zero. Table 14 summarizes the hypothesis testing results. Dispositional awe was significantly linked to peer-reported pro-environmental behavior (coefficient = 0.264, p = .001), supporting Hypothesis 1. Dispositional awe also significantly predicted connectedness to nature (coefficient = 0.631, p < .001), place identity (coefficient = 0.613, p < .001), and place dependence (coefficient = 0.367, p < .001), thus hypotheses 2a, 3a, and 4a were supported. Connectedness to nature (coefficient = 0.358, p < .001) and place identity (coefficient = 0.199, p < .05) were both significantly linked to peer-reported pro-environmental behavior, thus supporting hypotheses 2b and 3b. However, place dependence did not show a significant relationship with peer-reported pro-environmental behavior (coefficient = −0.036, p = .589), so Hypothesis 4b was not supported.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 14.

Hypotheses Testing Results (n = 182).

Hypotheses	Path coefficient	t-Value	p-Value	Results
H1: DA→PPEB	0.264**	3.444	.001	Supported
H2a: DA→CTN	0.631***	6.428	.000	Supported
H2b: CTN→PPEB	0.358***	4.760	.000	Supported
H2c: DA→CTN→PPEB	0.226***	3.524	.000	Supported
H3a: DA→PI	0.613***	5.426	.000	Supported
H3b: PI→PPEB	0.199*	2.562	.010	Supported
H3c: DA→PI→PPEB	0.122*	2.204	.028	Supported
H4a: DA→PD	0.367***	6.319	.000	Supported
H4b: PD→PPEB	−0.036	0.540	.589	Not Supported
H4c: DA→PD→PPEB	−0.013	0.498	.619	Not Supported

***

p < .001. **p < .01. *p < .05.

The mediation analysis revealed significant indirect effects of dispositional awe on peer-reported pro-environmental behavior through connectedness to nature (coefficient = .226, p < .001) and place identity (coefficient = 0.122, p < .05), supporting Hypotheses 2c and 3c. The indirect effect via place dependence was not significant (coefficient = −0.013, p = .619), thus Hypothesis 4c was not supported. Consistent with Study 3, connectedness to nature and place identity partially mediated the relationship between dispositional awe and peer-reported pro-environmental behavior.

Discussion

Study 4 provided a critical robustness check for Study 3 by replacing self-reported pro-environmental behavior with peer assessment, which reduces concerns about self-representation bias and intention-behavior gap (Kormos & Gifford, 2014). All results replicated the key findings from Study 3. While R² values were modestly lower for peer assessment, they remained substantial and significant. Therefore, Study 4 further validated the robustness of the research model and confirmed the reliability of the observed mediation pathways (Figure 4).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 4.

Model results of Study 4.

General Discussion

This study examined whether and how dispositional awe relates to destination residents’ pro-environmental behavior intention. Across four complementary studies with Tibetan residents, we obtained cumulative evidence for this relationship and its underlying psychological pathways. Study 1 established the focal association between residents’ dispositional awe and pro-environmental behavior intention (whether). Study 2 used in-depth interviews to explore residents’ lived experiences of awe and environmental protection, thereby uncovering three candidate explanatory pathways: connectedness to nature, place identity, and place dependence (how). Building on these qualitative insights and relevant research, we developed a mediation model that was subsequently tested in Studies 3 and 4. Study 3 showed that residents’ dispositional awe predicted pro-environmental behavior intention directly and indirectly through connectedness to nature and place identity, whereas the indirect pathway through place dependence was not significant. Study 4 replicated these findings using peer-reported pro-environmental behavior, helping address self-representation bias and the intention-behavior gap.

A central finding is that residents higher in dispositional awe are more likely to engage in pro-environmental behavior. Prior tourism research shows that tourists’ momentary awe can promote pro-environmental actions (Su et al., 2025; Yan & Jia, 2021; H. Zhang & He, 2025). Our results extend this effect from a transient state to a stable trait by demonstrating that an enduring tendency to experience awe similarly predicts residents’ pro-environmental behavior intention. This finding provides empirical support for Shiota et al.’s (2007) theoretical proposition that individuals who frequently experience awe may adopt more pro-environmental actions. Dispositional awe can be particularly consequential for destination sustainability because it persists beyond a single awe-eliciting encounter and can support sustained behavior patterns (Anderson et al., 2019; Jacobs & McConnell, 2022; W. Liu et al., 2025; Shiota et al., 2007). This pattern is consistent with Broaden-and-Build theory, which suggests that repeated positive emotional experiences can broaden individuals’ mindsets and help build lasting psychological resources (Fredrickson, 2001).

Our evidence further consistently suggests that connectedness to nature is a key mediator linking dispositional awe and pro-environmental behavior intention. Although connectedness to nature has been broadly associated with pro-environmental behavior (Jacobs & McConnell, 2022; Pearce et al., 2022), little is known about whether dispositional awe relates to connectedness to nature. Previous theoretical inference suggesting that dispositional awe is associated with an expanded connectedness with one’s surroundings informed our hypothesis development (Z. Zhang & Li, 2024). Our findings provide robust empirical confirmation of this inference and further extend it to explaining residents’ pro-environmental behavior. We also observed a strong association between connectedness to nature and pro-environmental behavior intention, differing from Beery and Wolf-Watz (2014) who argued that generalized connectedness to nature does not necessarily translate into stronger pro-environmental behavior. One plausible explanation is that in our context, residents’ connectedness to nature reflects a trait-level sense of “oneness” that extends beyond specific natural features, which may make it more stable and enable it to exert a stronger effect on behavior.

Our findings also support the role of dispositional awe in cultivating place identity and place dependence, two dimensions of place attachment that capture residents’ cognitive and functional connections to Xizang’s environment. While empirical evidence linking awe and place attachment remains limited (Arnould & Price, 1993; Hicks, 2018), our findings align with Broaden-and-Build theory by suggesting that dispositional awe can build lasting psychological resources related to the surrounding environment (Fredrickson, 2001). More importantly, our research clarifies the distinct roles of place identity and place dependence in shaping residents’ pro-environmental behavior intention. Consistent with prior studies (Tonge et al., 2015; Xie & Wang, 2024), place identity emerged as a significant positive predictor. This finding helps address some inconsistencies in earlier research by highlighting the motivational power of strong cognitive and symbolic identification with a place (Junot et al., 2018; Tonge et al., 2015). By contrast, place dependence showed no significant effect across Studies 3 and 4. Together, these findings corroborate the conceptual distinction between place identity and place dependence and suggest that place identity is a more robust predictor of pro-environmental behavior intention (Tonge et al., 2015).

The non-significant role of place dependence contradicted our hypothesis and previous research (Jiao et al., 2023; Junot et al., 2018; Xie & Wang, 2024), but it is not surprising since our qualitative evidence and some prior research also noted its complexity and ambivalence (Ramkissoon et al., 2013; Tonge et al., 2015). Importantly, this finding does not imply that place dependence is irrelevant. Instead, our interview narratives illuminate a more nuanced, double-edged pattern that has not been fully explained by prior research. For many residents, functional reliance on the environment motivates protection, while for others the same reliance can create pressures to prioritize family survival or business income over environmental concerns. These insights gained through our mixed-method approach underline the value of examining the meaning embedded in place attachment, rather than treating it as a monolithic construct in tourism sustainability research (Tonge et al., 2015).

Theoretical Implications

First, this research shifts attention from momentary state awe to enduring dispositional awe, offering a novel perspective for understanding residents’ pro-environmental behavior in tourism research. Although prior tourism literature has robustly shown that tourists’ awe can influence pro-environmental actions (Su et al., 2025; Y. Zhang et al., 2025), this perspective is inherently limited by the temporary nature of state awe and tourists’ short stays (Hicks, 2018; S. L. Ng, 2024). By contrast, residents interact with the environment in more enduring and cumulative ways and may develop a more stable tendency to feel awe, with lasting implications for destination sustainability (Jacobs & McConnell, 2022; W. Liu et al., 2025). However, both the emotional and trait-level drivers of residents’ pro-environmental behavior remain poorly understood (W. Liu et al., 2025). Responding to this gap, we confirm that dispositional awe is a strong and reliable predictor of residents’ pro-environmental behavior intention, highlighting the theoretical value of dispositional awe (Shiota et al., 2007). More broadly, we argue that the role of awe in motivating sustainable behavior is not limited to momentary experiences and can also operate as a stable trait that consistently supports pro-environmental behavior (Jiang et al., 2024). This research encourages future research on how enduring dispositional emotions may foster durable, harmonious relationships between stakeholders and destination environments.

Second, this study clarifies how dispositional awe translates into pro-environmental behavior intention by identifying two primary psychological mechanisms. Across studies, connectedness to nature and place identity consistently mediated the relationship between dispositional awe and pro-environmental outcomes. These findings empirically support theoretical inferences that dispositional awe may potentially increase one’s connectedness to nature and that awe can strengthen place attachment (Arnould & Price, 1993; Hicks, 2018; S. T. Ng et al., 2023). Notably, these mediating pathways remained evident when pro-environmental behavior was peer-reported, highlighting their robustness. Furthermore, we also contribute to tourism literature on place attachment by offering a more nuanced explanation of the complex role of place dependence (Halpenny, 2010; Ramkissoon et al., 2013; Tonge et al., 2015). Our evidence suggests that place dependence can function as a double-edged sword that is sensitive to contextual conditions. Residents’ reliance on the destination environment may motivate protection, yet under economic pressure it may also shift priorities toward immediate needs. This interpretation helps explain inconsistencies in earlier research and signals that future tourism research should avoid treating place attachment as a monolithic construct when studying pro-environmental behavior.

Third, this research extends Broaden-and-Build theory by specifying the types of resources through which dispositional awe may support residents’ pro-environmental behavior intention. It was argued that each emotion may broaden and build through distinct pathways (Cavanaugh et al., 2015). Although the application of this theory has been extended from state emotions to dispositional emotions, it has not been fully leveraged to explain how dispositional awe translates into specific pro-environmental outcomes through broadening and resource building. We address this theoretical gap by demonstrating that dispositional awe broadens and builds in a distinctive manner. Specifically, connectedness to nature represents a relational and emotional resource, while place identity represents a cognitive and symbolic resource. Focusing on connectedness to nature and place identity also differentiates this study from previous work on tourists’ state awe, which emphasized mechanisms such as “small self” or norm-based processes (Kim et al., 2023; Su et al., 2025; H. Zhang et al., 2024; H. Zhang & He, 2025). By incorporating connectedness to nature and place identity into the repertoire of resources cultivated by dispositional awe, we expand the explanatory scope of Broaden-and-Build theory.

Practical Implications

This research offers practical insights for destination sustainability management. First, residents are central stakeholders whose pro-environmental behavior intention is shaped by their enduring tendency to experience awe. The consistent association between residents’ dispositional awe and pro-environmental intention, alongside peer-reported behaviors, suggests that destination environmental programs can be strengthened by targeting how residents habitually experience their surroundings. Managerial efforts may be more effective when they provide repeated opportunities for residents to routinely notice vastness, beauty, and sacred meaning, rather than relying on transient awe-evoking activities. Possible approaches include nature-immersion and interpretation programs, community festivals celebrating local landscapes, and educational workshops on the destination’s natural heritage.

Second, connectedness to nature and place identity appear to be the primary mechanisms through which dispositional awe translates into pro-environmental behavior. Accordingly, communicative and educational interventions should be designed to cultivate emotional closeness to the natural world and identity-based pride and belongingness in the destination. Examples include campaigns such as “protect what you are part of” and “protect your home.” Third, the non-significant effect of place dependence should not be interpreted as irrelevance. Our qualitative evidence suggests that residents’ functional reliance can motivate protection when they perceive a clear link between environmental quality and livelihood. However, when this reliance is paired with short-term economic pressure, residents may prioritize immediate survival or business operations over environmental protection. Therefore, destination managers should avoid relying solely on economic self-interest appeals and instead consider incentives or compensation that reduce the immediate costs of pro-environmental choices.

Finally, our research design offers a methodological implication with practical relevance for evaluating pro-environmental behavior interventions. Because self-reported measures of pro-environmental behavior may be affected by social desirability and the intention-behavior gap, combining self-reported and peer-reported behavior can strengthen validity. In practice, destination organizations can adopt a similar approach when evaluating interventions by supplementing self-reported intentions with peer assessments, community leader evaluations, or other corroborating indicators at the neighborhood level. This triangulated measurement strategy can improve confidence in intervention effectiveness and provide more realistic assessments of behavioral change.

Limitations and Future Research

This study has limitations that suggest directions for future research. First, because we focused on Tibetan residents, the generalizability of our findings to other contexts remains uncertain. Future research should examine whether the relationships observed here are consistent across various contexts, particularly more urbanized destinations. Second, while we measured pro-environmental behavior using both self-reported intentions and peer-reported behavior, we did not capture objective behavior. Future studies could incorporate longitudinal or observational indicators to better address the intention-behavior gap. Third, while we concentrated on dispositional awe, other enduring positive emotions like gratitude, elevation, or compassion might similarly promote pro-environmental behavior. Therefore, an exciting direction would be to compare the effects of different dispositional emotions, or test their combined effects. Fourth, length of residence was measured using broad categories, with “≥10 years” as the highest option, limiting more detailed comparisons among long-term residents. Future work could use continuous measures and include a “lived here all my life” option to examine variation across residency duration more precisely.