Tourists’ ethically responsible participation in animal-based tourism: A configurational impact assessment

Abstract

Ethical concerns about animal-based tourism are raising ongoing attention from the international community, and investigation of tourists’ ethically responsible behaviors in animal eco-tourism is limited. This study investigated the formation of ethically responsible behaviors by integrating constituents from the value-belief-norm (VBN) theory, the norm-activation model (NAM), and the theory of planned behavior (TPB), including biospheric value, altruistic value, ethical beliefs, awareness of ethical issues, ascribed responsibility, personal norm, attitude, social norm, and behavioral intentions with regard to animal-based tourism. The cultural involvement of Confucian harmony and media coverage were found to positively influence awareness of ethical issues. The proposed research framework was further optimized by identifying a moderator, described as perceptions of animal protection. Methodologically, along with structural equation modeling (SEM) analysis, this study also used fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA) to evaluate asymmetric configurations (causal recipes) and necessary conditions for predicting different levels of behavioral intentions in animal-based tourism.

Keywords

Animal tourism tourists’ ethically responsible behaviors norm activation media coverage cultural involvement of Confucian harmony fsQCA

Introduction

Tourism activities that use confined, captive, or wild animals have led scholars to pay more attention to ethically responsible tourist behaviors (Fakfare et al., 2023, 2024; Kline and Fischer, 2023; Meng et al., 2024; Von Essen et al., 2020). Tourist attractions featuring animal-based tourism resources are still on the rise, and are expected to enhance tourists’ experience value as the function of animal co-creation is recognized and the inclusion of animals shapes the way nature is experienced (Bertella, 2021; Meng et al., 2024; Tkaczynski et al., 2023). In some rural areas, farm animals are a significant pull factor for agritourists (Bertella, 2021). However, the growth in animal-based tourism has sparked competing perspectives for and against this type of tourism. Fennell (2013) and Von Essen et al. (2020) indicated that animal-based tourism is associated with better animal welfare, which could enhance the well-being and humane treatment of endangered animals. Duffy and Moore (2011), Fennell (2012) and Moorhouse et al. (2017) have pointed out the animal ethics issues in animal-based tourism activities that suppress animals’ freedom and autonomy. With the development of the green tourism industry, animal ethics issues related to the tourism industry are expected to receive more attention worldwide. There has been much debate on the social issue of “zero animal exploitation”, questioning whether animals could be considered part of the environment and used as resources (Herdoiza et al., 2024; Köllen and Schneeberger, 2023), and an animal welfare objective has been suggested as an additional goal that should be incorporated into the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (Herdoiza et al., 2024). Meanwhile, Fennell (2014) declared the need to explore the confines of a global code of ethics in the animal-based tourism context, calling for re-amendment of the United Nations World Tourism Organization's Global Code of Ethics to make it a “truly responsible creed”.

The existing literature on animal-based tourism criticizes utilitarianism in tourism consumption, which is considered unethical as it seeks to justify the use of animals in tourism solely on the basis of maximizing human benefits (pleasure) or preventing suffering for humans at the expense of animals (Fennell and Thomsen, 2021; Meng et al., 2024; Winter, 2020). Disapproval of utilitarianism centers on the scale of suffering caused to animals (Fennell and Thomsen, 2021) and the replaceability/irreplaceability debate when their use in tourism involves killing (Von Essen and Allen, 2021). The welfare arguments emphasize animal well-being, challenging the consumption of animals primarily for profit and customer entertainment (Fennell, 2022a; Winter, 2020). Ethical concerns about the use of animals in tourism have been identified, including tourists’ self-interested motives, animal confinement in unnatural habitats, along with ecofeminism, and the use of animal pictures in promotions (Bertella, 2013; Fennell, 2020; Meng et al., 2024). While animal-based tourism may indeed raise ethical concerns from an animal rights standpoint, it can be deemed acceptable under the framework of animal welfare, which focuses on ensuring the well-being and humane treatment of animals in tourism activities. Meng et al. (2024) stated that tourists’ ethical awareness and attitudes towards animal-based tourism products are associated with the cultural aspect of Confucian Harmony, which could lead to tourists’ ethically responsible participation in animal-based tourism.

Despite significant progress in extending the breadth and width of knowledge on animal use in tourism, a thorough literature review revealed that there are still gaps. First, most existing animal-based tourism research fails to capture the predictors of tourists’ ethical and responsible behavior from a philosophical perspective, and instead focuses on qualitative descriptions of morals and institutional forces (Fennell and Sheppard, 2021; Font et al., 2019; Meng et al., 2024). Second, although there is some research on individuals’ normative activation and pro-social/pro-environmental behavioral intentions in relation to consuming green hotel and tourism products or services (Chi et al., 2022, 2023; Han, 2015, Han et al., 2017; He et al., 2023), normative ethics and responsible behaviors in animal-based tourism deserve further exploration. Several studies have drawn attention to normative ethics in relation to animals in tourism (Hoy et al., 2023; Meng et al., 2024; Ying et al., 2022), which involve a comprehensive consideration of values, ethical beliefs, attitudes, norms, Confucianism cultural values, animal sentience and perceptions of animal protection, and communication factors such as media coverage (Fennell, 2022a; Meng et al., 2024; Mkono and Holder, 2019; Wattanacharoensil et al., 2024). Third, the value-belief-norm (VBN) theory, the norm-activation model (NAM), and the theory of planned behavior (TPB) have been used in previous studies to elucidate tourists’ norm activation and their pro-environmental behaviors (Chi et al., 2022, Han et al., 2017; He et al., 2023; Kim and Hwang, 2020), while the combination of such theories with the mentioned variables (i.e., media coverage, CICH, perceptions of animal protection) has received little empirical testing to evaluate the formation of ethically responsible behavior among tourists (Han et al., 2021; Kiatkawsin et al., 2020; Meng et al., 2024), especially in the animal-based tourism context. Lastly, from a methodology perspective, the current literature on animal-based tourism has usually adopted structural equation modeling (SEM) to determine the net effects of potential antecedents on tourists’ intentions of practicing ethical behaviors (Meng et al., 2024). Asymmetrical causal recipes could provide more detailed knowledge about promoting tourists’ responsible behaviors, which are worthy of identification by using fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA) (Kim et al., 2023; Wattanacharoensil et al., 2024).

To address the research gaps identified, four specific research objectives were formulated in the present study. The first was to investigate the formation of ethically responsible behaviors by integrating constituents of the VBN theory, the NAM, and two components of the TPB (i.e., biospheric value, altruistic value, ethical beliefs, awareness of ethical issues, ascribed responsibility, and personal norm, attitude, and social norm) to determine behavioral intentions for animal-based tourism. This avoided the limitations of using a single theory, which could present problems such as the inaccuracy of the VBN in predicting specific behaviors involving conflicting interests (Stren, 2000), the ineffectiveness of the NAM in explaining behavior that is not directly related to perceived consequences (Onwezen et al., 2013), and the failure of the TPB to account for the gap that exists between intention and action (Sniehotta et al., 2014). Considering the significance of media coverage and Confucian culture in affecting individuals’ awareness of social issues (Han et al., 2021; Kiatkawsin et al., 2020), the second objective was to investigate the impact of media coverage and cultural involvement of Confucian Harmony on tourists’ awareness of ethical issues. Since tourists’ perceptions of animal protection may play a significant role in determining the relationships between values, beliefs, norms, attitudes, and behavioral intentions towards animal-based tourism, the third objective was to examine the moderating role of perceptions of animal protection in the proposed framework. In addition to the examination of linear relationships among study variables with SEM, the fourth objective was to use fsQCA to address asymmetrical effects (causal recipes) from potential antecedents to predict different levels of behavioral intention relating to animal-based tourism, which could further enhance the predictive power of the research framework, providing insights on how to promote ethically responsible practices by tourists in the animal-based tourism context.

Literature review

Travelers’ ethically responsible behaviors in animal-based tourism

Animal-based tourism is not just about wildlife; it also encompasses a broader range of zoos, aquariums, marine parks, and animal-based parks (Hooper, 2023; Kim et al., 2023; Meng et al., 2024). Research on the role of animals in tourism began in the late 1990s and the early twenty-first century, with a considerable number of studies (Orams, 2002; Ryan, 1998; Viskovic, 1993). As research on animal-based tourism has expanded in depth and breadth, animal-based tourism seems to have transformed from conventional niche tourism to a form that is more accessible to the general public (Äijälä, 2021; Bersaglio and Margulies, 2022; Bertella, 2021; Fennell, 2022a, 2022b; Fennell et al., 2024; Meng et al., 2024). There is a growing body of academic research linking animal-based tourism to ethics, moral codes, animal welfare, and individuals’ responsible behavior (Fennell, 2014, 2020, 2023; Font et al., 2019; Meng et al., 2024; Wattanacharoensil et al., 2024). Ethics pedagogy has gained greater attention in animal-based tourism, which relates to aspects including species involvement in different settings, level of engagement, and the emotions and states of animals (Fennell et al., 2024). Amid the growing awareness of the ethical implications of animal-based recreational activities, discussion of travelers’ responsible behavior in relation to animal-based tourism is consistently evolving (Fakfare et al., 2023, Fennell and Sheppard, 2021; Meng et al., 2024; Wattanacharoensil et al., 2024). Environmental education in animal-based tourism should receive more attention from both the academic and industry aspects of tourism (Caplow, 2021; Fennell et al., 2024).

A number of studies have indicated that paying attention to pro-environmental and pro-social consumption behavior has become one of the important aspects of the sustainable and responsible development trend in the tourism industry (Chi et al., 2023; Han et al., 2020; Zhu et al., 2022). Likewise, in animal-based tourism, tourists are increasingly becoming mindful of excessive commercialization of animals and the associated suffering caused to them (Fennell, 2023; Fennell and Thomsen, 2021; Wattanacharoensil et al., 2024). Although commercialization is common in other forms of tourism (e.g., cultural tourism), it may trigger a variety of detrimental consequences in animal-based tourism. Therefore, tourists’ concerns about animal welfare and environment conservation, as well as their responsible behaviors in animal-related tourism (e.g., whale-watching tourism) have been greatly valued (Köllen and Schneeberger, 2023; Meng et al., 2024; Suárez-Rojas et al., 2022; Wattanacharoensil et al., 2024). This is in line with humanity's pursuit of SDGs in tourism and will promote the sustainability of animal-related tourism, echoing prior studies advocating for zero animal exploitation to be included as an additional goal in the SDGs (Herdoiza et al., 2024; Köllen and Schneeberger, 2023). Despite significant progress in discussing the antecedents influencing the formation of individuals’ responsible behavior in a variety of contexts (e.g., Chi et al., 2022, 2023; Han et al., 2017, 2021; He et al., 2023), empirical examination of the antecedents influencing tourists’ ethically responsible behavior in the context of animal-based tourism is relatively limited (Kim et al., 2023; Meng et al., 2024) and the potential causal recipes for predicting different levels of tourists’ responsible behavior in animal-based tourism settings are worthy of exploration (Kim et al., 2023; Wattanacharoensil et al., 2024).

Theoretical foundations

The NAM and the VBN theory are considered authoritative in analysing the determinants of travelers’ environmentally responsible behaviors (Han et al., 2017; Meng et al., 2024; Kim and Hwang, 2020). The NAM explains the vital influence of three factors (problem awareness, ascribed responsibility, and personal norms) in activating the formation of individuals’ responsible behaviors (Chi et al., 2022). In the NAM, problem awareness relates to one's awareness of the negative consequences of failing to act pro-socially/pro-environmentally for others or for other things, and the ascription of responsibility triggered by problem awareness refers to a perceived obligation or responsibility for acting pro-socially/pro-environmentally to avoid some of the negative consequences (Han, 2015; Kim and Hwang, 2020). These factors have a direct and positive influence on personal norms, representing the moral duty to engage in or refrain from specific eco-friendly or pro-social actions (Han et al., 2020). Previous scholars also applied the extended NAM to evaluate the formation of pro-environmental/pro-social behavioral intentions, and they found that anticipated emotions of pride and guilt significantly mediated the relationship between ascription of responsibility and personal norms (Chi et al., 2022; Han et al., 2017).

The VBN, while emphasizing broad value orientations, claims that although individuals’ values might vary throughout their lifespans, they play a central role as guiding principles in personal norms and lives (Han et al., 2017). In the VBN theory, individuals’ beliefs stem from and are significantly affected by differentiated value orientations. Both values and beliefs are significant predictors of personal norms and pro-environmental/pro-social behavioral intentions (Han, 2015; Le et al., 2021). Previous research on the VBN theory classified values into three aspects: altruism value, which embraces collective environmental values; biospheric value, which emphasizes the biosphere; and egoistic value (Han et al., 2017). Human beliefs in these studies are interpreted as the capabilities and limitations of humans in achieving a balance between nature and the development of human society, often reflected as an ecological worldview or described as the new environmental paradigm, involving awareness of consequences and ascription of responsibility (Han, 2015; Le et al., 2021). The new environmental paradigm is influenced by altruism value, biospheric value, and egoistic value, and can be conceptualized as a worldview based on the need for balanced growth through humans’ responsible preservation of nature (Han et al., 2017; Le et al., 2021), which in turn increases or strengthens individuals’ problem awareness, ascription of responsibility, personal norms, and pro-environmental behavioral intentions.

Based on the viewpoints extracted from these two theories, the formation of pro-environmental behaviors can be logically summarized into a framework: the impact of triple value orientations (altruism value, biospheric value, and egoistic value) on behavioral intention is achieved by the sequential mediators of the new environmental paradigm, problem awareness, and personal norms. While studies on tourists’ pro-environmental behaviors are widely available, relatively few empirical studies have examined visitors’ responsible behavior in the animal-based tourism context using the VBN theory and the NAM (Denley et al., 2020; Meng et al., 2024). Han et al. (2017) and Denley et al. (2020) demonstrated that altruism value and biospheric value positively predicted individuals’ environmental beliefs and concerns (new environmental paradigm and problem awareness), and such beliefs and concerns significantly predicted ascribed responsibility and personal norms, which enhanced individuals’ intentions to visit endangered animals in parks and their engagement in the conservation of parks’ plants and animals. Fakfare et al. (2023) found that personal norms influenced tourists’ word-of-mouth intentions relating to animal ethics. Taken together, individuals’ ethically responsible behaviors are tightly related to their ethical beliefs, which are primarily based on the value orientations of altruism value and biospheric value. Differences in personal ethical beliefs lead to differences in awareness of ethical issues in animal-based tourism, which could further activate the ascribed responsibility that significantly drives the formation of personal norms and behavioral intention.

Historic studies have also combined the TPB with the VBN theory or the NAM to comprehensively examine the factors contributing to the generation of pro-environmental/pro-social behavior (Chi et al., 2022, 2023; Trang et al., 2019). Three constituents in the TPB include attitude, which refers to individuals’ fondness and/or antipathy for a certain behavior; perceived behavioral control, which reflects the influence of external factors (e.g., time, money, and materials) on individuals’ behaviors; and social norms, which can be described as the outcome of the influence of social pressures or prejudices on personal behaviors (Chi et al., 2022; Han, 2015; Han et al., 2017). Previous studies on green hotels and pro-social/pro-environmental behaviors by Han (2020) and Verma et al. (2019) have experimentally verified that ascribed responsibility has a significant impact on attitude and social norms, which drive responsible behavioral intentions through the mediator of personal norms. Likewise, attitude and social norms were identified as essential factors in predicting the formation of personal norms and behavioral intention (Kim et al., 2023; Meng et al., 2024). Given the above empirical arguments, this study focused on combining the two theoretical frameworks (VBN theory and the NAM) with the variables of attitude and social norm in the TPB to assess the generation of behavioral intentions for animal-based tourism. Hence the following hypotheses were developed.

H1 and H2: Biospheric value and altruistic value have a significant influence on ethical beliefs.

H3: Ethical beliefs have a significant influence on awareness of ethical issues.

H4: Awareness of ethical issues has a significant influence on ascribed responsibility.

H5, H6 and H7: Ascribed responsibility has a significant influence on attitude, personal norm, and social norm.

H8 and 9: Attitude and social norm have a significant influence on personal norm.

H10, H11, and H12: Attitude, personal norm, and social norm have a significant influence on behavioral intentions on animal-based tourism.

Media coverage and cultural involvement of Confucian harmony

The formation of individuals’ awareness and attitude towards some significant social or political issues is often affected by external factors, such as media information and social environments with different cultural ideologies. Likewise, in the context of animal-based tourism, tourists’ awareness and mindfulness of ethical issues concerning animal-based tourism could be significantly affected by forces including media exposure, which is an external stimulus; and the influences of philosophical beliefs, such as the cultural involvement of Confucian harmony (Meng et al., 2024; Mkono and Holder, 2019; Ying et al., 2022). It is meaningful to investigate the specific role of external factors (i.e., media coverage and cultural involvement of Confucian harmony) in illustrating the formation of tourists’ awareness and mindfulness of the ethical issues that arise in animal-based tourism development.

In modern society, the critical role of media coverage in raising public awareness and affecting national image, destination image, company image, and individuals’ decision-making has been thoroughly documented (Chemli et al., 2022; Graf-Vlachy et al., 2020). Media coverage indicates the attention given to a particular topic in various media forms, including print, broadcast, and digital platforms (Graf-Vlachy et al., 2020). Media coverage is a common way to introduce new products and technologies, disseminate marketing information and intervene in destination image management. For instance, media coverage during the Covid-19 pandemic played a key role in drawing public attention to the disease, providing travel information and influencing individuals’ awareness, attitude, and decision-making with regard to future long-distance and outbound travelling, and even changed the image of the entire tourism industry (Chemli et al., 2022). Deng et al. (2023) also noted the impact of media coverage on tourist re-visit intentions in the post-pandemic era. Despite the wealth of literature on the application of media coverage in marketing and tourist psychology and behavior, limited evidence exists on how it shapes tourists’ awareness of ethical issues. A few empirical studies have shown that media coverage may help the public to quickly become aware of certain adverse phenomena on an international scale, which can cause individuals to reflect on ethics and behavioral norms. Mkono and Holder (2019) found that the global “cyber movement” triggered by perceived unethical hunting was successful, at least in the short run, in preventing the practice in several wildlife parks.

Previous studies have pointed out that media coverage is an important antecedent of biospheric value orientation and pro-environmental/pro-social behavior (Han et al., 2021; Lee, 2011; Liu and Li, 2021). In animal-based tourism, the significance of media coverage in helping tourists to develop a greater awareness of ethical issues (e.g., animal exploitation and cruelty) and guiding or regulating their ethical behaviors, needs to be recognized and emphasized (Mkono and Holder, 2019; Ying et al., 2022). As one method of information disclosure and knowledge dissemination, media coverage can greatly increase public awareness of ethical issues and influence tourists’ cognitive and affective responses to animal ethics (Fakfare et al., 2023; Mkono and Holder, 2019). Ying et al. (2022) noted that whether an interaction between animal tourism and tourists was seen as ethical depended on tourists’ perceptions of the existence of symbiotic relationships between humans and game animals. Tourists’ mindfulness of ethical issues can also be shaped by involvement in and exposure to social and philosophical systems. For instance, Aristotelian ethics, Greek ethics, and Confucian ethics have been consistently explored in terms of their implications for business ethics and pro-social practices (Koehn, 2022; Sison et al., 2020). Confucian ethics are hailed for fostering values related to the environment, nature, democracy, and social harmony (Meng et al., 2024; Wan et al., 2022).

According to Confucianism, uprightness, holistic equilibrium, and a comprehensive life balance are central to ensuring harmony, as the philosophy encompasses personal, social, and cosmic virtues. This implies that human beings are expected not only to promote harmony between humans, but also throughout the universe (Li and Düring, 2022; Meng et al., 2024). Confucianism is seen as being able to shape consumers’ and firms’ behaviors in service industries, including hospitality and tourism. Its inherent values can be linked with business ethics, work morals, service provision, corporate social responsibility, and ethical pro-environmental/pro-social behaviors. Philosophical values similar to Confucian harmony exist in other parts of the world, such as South America, which highlights harmony with nature and communal living (Rist and Dahdouh-Guebas, 2006), and the Nordic countries, which focus on egalitarianism and social welfare systems (Fritzell et al., 2005). Confucian harmony may be best suited to this study as it places importance on social order, hierarchical relationships, and collective well-being over individual desires.

Taking into account the various facets of Confucian cultural values (including family, social life, harmonious living environments, respecting history, knowledge or education, sense of obligation, and long-term orientation), the cultural involvement of Confucian harmony could contribute to human quality of life and harmonious unity between humans and nature (Meng et al., 2024; Wen et al., 2019). Although Confucianism is consistent with the SDGs of the tourism industry, limited evidence exists on the impact of Confucian harmony on tourists’ awareness of ethical issues (Meng et al., 2024). Influenced by Confucian cultural concepts, Chinese tourists were found to be actively concerned about nature, animals, and environmental issues (Packer et al., 2014). The cultural involvement of Confucian harmony takes a weaker approach to the anthropocentric view and places restrictions on taking animals in a wasteful or unsportsmanlike way and in the wrong seasons. It enhances tourists’ ethical mindfulness to place an emphasis on maintaining correct and appropriate behavior (Meng et al., 2024; Packer et al., 2014), including practicing forbearance and conforming to the interests of a wider group rather than following individual desires. Kiatkawsin et al. (2020) also demonstrated that cultural involvement positively influences problem awareness, ascribed responsibility, and attitude, which drives the formation of personal norms and responsible behavior intentions. In the context of animal ethics, media coverage about ethical animal-based tourism and individuals’ cultural involvement in Confucian harmony are believed to raise individuals’ awareness of ethical issues and to promote love and empathy toward endangered and/or domesticated animals. The preceding discussion indicates that media coverage and cultural involvement of Confucian harmony significantly influence individuals’ mindfulness and awareness of ethical issues. Hence, the following hypotheses were formulated:

H13 and H14: Media coverage and cultural involvement of Confucian harmony have a significant influence on awareness of ethical issues.

Identification of asymmetric configurations

Considering the complex nature of predicting causal recipes for ethically responsible behavioral intentions, the non-linear and asymmetric configurations of factors of the VBN and the NAM, as well as the other four variables (attitude, social norm, media coverage, and cultural involvement of Confucian harmony) are worthy of further investigation. In addition to using multiple behavioral theories to clarify the impact of antecedents on behavioral intentions, some researchers have found that examination of the combined impacts of various antecedents on intentions to engage in ethically responsible behaviors seems to be acknowledged and productive in tourism studies using fsQCA (Han, 2020; Kim et al., 2023; Wattanacharoensilet al., 2024), which can explain the underlying processes behind ethically responsible behaviors. Tourists’ cognitive and affective states, as well their behavioral intentions with regard to animal ethics, may be concurrently affected by various factors, including media coverage, value orientations, Confucian culture, and ethical and normative beliefs (Denley et al., 2020; Fakfare et al., 2023; Kim et al., 2023; Meng et al., 2024; Wattanacharoensil et al., 2024). Consistent with complexity theory's claim that individuals’ decision-making is a complex process, this study proposed the following hypothesis to examine asymmetric configurations for predicting ethically responsible behavioral intentions in animal-based tourism.

Hypothesis 15: Biospheric value, altruistic value, ethical beliefs, awareness of ethical issues, ascribed responsibility, personal norms, attitude, social norms, media coverage, and cultural involvement of Confucian harmony have an optimum combination impact on behavioral intentions on animal-based tourism.

Moderating role of perceptions of animal protection

As the reality behind animal performances and animal-based tourism continues to emerge, controversial ethical topics involving animal exploitation and abuse, animal experimentation, and the reintroduction of extinct species are being discussed in depth in the international community, and the public perspective on animal protection and welfare is receiving increasing attention (Broad, 2018, 2020; Fennell, 2022a; Font et al., 2019; Sinclair et al., 2022). However, the ethical issues dividing opinion today, in countries with different socio-cultural and economic backgrounds, are the perceptions of protecting endangered animals kept in captivity for commercial performances. While the variables of value orientation, ethical beliefs, norms, attitudes, ascribed responsibility, media coverage, and cultural involvement of Confucian harmony have separate and optimal effects on behavioral intentions related to animal-based tourism, whether the structural relationships and statistical associations between them can be enhanced or moderated by varying perceptions of animal protection has not yet been experimentally tested.

Historic studies on pro-environmental/prosocial behaviors have indicated that individuals’ perceptions of an event or a social issue have significant moderating effects on the relationships between variables of the NAM and the TPB. Such perceptions relating to an event or a social issue largely depend on individuals’ knowledge and are related to external factors involving policies and ongoing states of affairs (Chi et al., 2022; Kim and Hwang, 2020). In this study, perceptions of animal protection could be tightly linked with individuals’ knowledge about animal welfare and conservation, cultural involvement of Confucian harmony, social norms relating to psychological and behavioral ethics, interpersonal and inter-species experience, and ongoing efforts to eliminate negative or unethical phenomena in animal-based tourism, involving media exposure/coverage and related laws and regulations (Broad, 2018, 2020; Fennell, 2022a; Font et al., 2019; Meng et al., 2024; Sinclair et al., 2022). Different perceptions of animal protection can influence the intensity of awareness and ascribed responsibility with regard to ethical issues involved in animal-based tourism. This is consistent with the findings of Meng et al. (2024), which indicated that a sense of harmonious connection with nature/animals and a perceived need for autonomy of nature/animals play significant roles in affecting problem awareness. Alonso et al. (2020) indicated that individuals with low levels of knowledge about farming prefer to improve the living environment or welfare of farm animals, and perceptions of animal protection can mediate the links between biospheric value and altruism value, and ethical beliefs. Most social movements advocating for animal rights and welfare have helped to raise awareness of animal suffering and to promote animal welfare, emphasizing the value of altruism and ethical beliefs (Broad, 2018, 2020).

The associations between ethical beliefs, awareness of ethical issues, and ascribed responsibility can be also moderated by perceptions of animal protection. Previous findings have indicated that consumers’ positive perceptions of animal protection can lead to their increased awareness or concerns relating to animal ethics and welfare issues, and strong feelings of societal responsibility for harmonious coexistence and interactions with animals (Pelé et al., 2021). In addition, it is meaningful to test the moderating impacts of perceptions of animal protection on the relationships between ascribed responsibility, attitude, personal norms, social norms, and behavioral intentions in animal-based tourism, which is supported by the viewpoint of Petetta and Ciccocioppo (2021) that perceptions of animal protection enhance the sense of responsibility of active moral subjects (humans) towards passive moral subjects (other animal species). Rizzolo (2023) stressed that leisure tourists who have positive attitudes about supporting the sustainability of animal-based tourism are more likely to engage in conservation behaviors. Zhao et al. (2020) and Liu and Li (2021) noted that individuals can obtain different knowledge and considerations, and understanding about ethical issues, from media exposure and their own past experience, which can influence the formation of their ethical and normative beliefs (e.g., attitude, perceived responsibility, personal norms) and social norms, and lead to them autonomously reducing their intentions to engage in unethical behaviors. In animal-based tourism, tourists play an active role in promoting animal welfare and conservation, and the strength of the relationships between the study variables in the research framework is largely influenced by their perceptions of animal protection. Based on the previous empirical evidence, the moderating role of perceptions of animal protection was examined in the present study, with the following proposed hypotheses.

Hypothesis 16a∼16l: Perceptions of animal protection have a significant moderating influence on the associations between biospheric value, altruistic value, ethical beliefs, awareness of ethical issues, ascribed responsibility, personal norms, attitude, social norms, and behavioral intentions on animal-based tourism.

Figure 1 shows the theoretical framework incorporating relevant constructs and hypotheses.

Methodology

Measures

All measurement items for the study variables were adopted from prior studies (Chi et al., 2022; Han et al., 2017; Kiatkawsin et al., 2020; Kim and Hwang, 2020; Lee, 2011; Le et al., 2021; Meng et al., 2024; Wattanacharoensil et al., 2024; Whang et al., 2016; Zhao et al., 2020) and adapted to the research context of animal-based tourism. A 7-point Likert scale was used for scoring items, ranging from “strongly disagree” [1] to “strongly agree” [7], except for the measurement items for attitude, which were rated using a semantic differential scale (“bad” [1] to “good” [7]).

Data collection

The survey was conducted in South Korea, and the questionnaires were targeted at Koreans who had experienced animal-based tourism, including species such as elephants, dolphins, monkeys, and camels. Data collection lasted three weeks from early to mid-September 2022. The questionnaire contained a screening question: “Have you participated in animal-based tourism within the past five years?”. Respondents who answered ‘no’ were excluded from completing the survey. The survey was administered online to potential participants via Embrain, a well-established survey company in South Korea, and 346 questionnaires were used for data analysis. Table 1 summarizes the sample profiles.

Table 1.

Demographic information and travel characteristics (n = 346).

Variable	Category	Distribution	Valid percentage (%)
Gender	Male	181	52.3
Gender	Female	165	47.7
Household annual income	Under $25,000	32	9.2
	$25,000 ∼ $39,999	85	24.6
	$40,000 ∼ $54,999	63	18.2
	$55,000 ∼ $69,999	54	15.6
	$70,000 ∼ $84,999	54	15.6
	$85,000 ∼ $99,999	34	9.8
	Over $100,000	24	6.9
Travel frequency in 5 years	1 time	85	24.6
	2 ∼ 3 times	178	51.4
	4 ∼ 5 times	55	15.9
	6 ∼ 9 times	14	4.0
	Over 10 times	14	4.0
Age	20–29 years old	72	20.8
	30–39 years old	70	20.2
	40–49 years old	64	18.5
	50–59 years old	62	17.9
	60–69 years old	78	22.5
Education background	Less than high school degree	2	0.6
	High school degree	56	16.2
	2-year degree/community-college degree	32	9.2
	University graduate	214	61.8
	Graduate degree	42	12.1
Most recent animal-based tourism	Within the last 3 months	59	17.1
	Within the last 6 months	51	14.7
	Within the last 1 year	75	21.7
	Within the last 2 years	43	12.4
	Within the last 3 years	44	12.7
	Within the last 4 years	42	12.1
	Within the last 5 years	32	9.2

Results

Assessment on the measurement model

Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was carried out to evaluate the reliability and internal and convergent consistency of the measurement model by calculating the Cronbach’s alpha, composite reliability (CR), and average variance extracted (AVE) values (Bagozzi and Yi, 1988; Chi et al., 2024). The factor loadings of items ranged between 0 .791 and 0.952, implying that the relevant items were reasonably loaded in the corresponding variable. All Cronbach's alpha and CR values of study variables were above 0.8, and the AVE values were greater than the critical value of 0.5, indicating that internal and convergent validity among study variables was achieved. Discriminant validity was tested by confirming that AVE values were generally higher than the squared value of correlations between variables. The CFA results in Table 2 (χ²= 1557.333, (df =872, p < .001), χ²/df = 1.786, CFI = .954, IFI = .954, TLI = .948, RMSEA = .048) indicated that the measurement scale had satisfactory reliability and adequate model fit.

Table 2.

Results of reliability and validity.

Scale items	Loading	M	SD	AVE	CR
Biospheric Value (α = 0.920)		5.718	.940	.743	.921
I think that the most important thing in engaging in animal-based tourism in an ethical manner is …
BV1—Preventing pollution, conserving natural resources and animal habitats.	.891
BV2—Respecting the earth, building harmonious relations with other species.	.911
BV3—Maintaining biodiversity.	.911
BV4—Learning how to respect and protect the lives of animals.	.878
Altruistic Value (α = 0.922)		5.182	1.001	.737	.918
I think that the potential benefits of participating in animal-based tourism in an ethical manner could be that …
AV1—There will be more equality in the relationship between human beings and animals.	.899
AV2—There will be less conflicts in the relationship between human beings and animals.	.902
AV3—There will be more improvements made for the living environment of animals.	.907
AV4—Travelers can gain benefits from an ethical animal-based trip (e.g., mental well-being and educational values).	.903
Ethical Beliefs (α = 0.894)		5.608	.964	.634	.896
EB1—The ongoing commercial use of animals (shows involving monkeys, elephants, dolphins and crocodiles) is not right in animal-based tourism.	.828
EB2—The cruel socializing training behind animal shows is wrong in animal-based tourism.	.896
EB3—I think the maintenance of a harmonious relationship between human beings and animals that are put into commercial performances is delicate and easily upset.	.791
EB4—We should prevent animal cruelty and potential mental stress and physical damage to animals during animal-based travel.	.841
EB5—Tourists should try to participate in animal-based tourism in an ethical manner.	.840
Media Coverage (α = 0.871)		4.854	1.091	.774	.873
MC1—I often come across information about animal cruelty and a call to participate in animal-based tourism with ethical behavior in mass media (e.g., broadcast or TV programs, newspapers, and the internet or social media).	.941
MC2—I often notice/read information about animal cruelty and a call to participate in animal-based tourism with ethical manners from mass media (e.g., broadcast or TV programs, newspapers, and internet or social media etc.).	.941
Awareness of Ethical Issues (α = 0.929)		5.467	1.001	.768	.930
I am aware of the negative consequences derived from animal-based tourism, such as …
AOEI1—More threats to the lives of animals due to commercial exploitation.	.894
AOEI2—More potential mental stress in animals due to commercial exploitation.	.914
AOEI3—More potential physical damage to animals due to cruel socializing training.	.923
AOEI4—Destruction of biodiversity and harmonious relationships between human beings and nature.	.904
Cultural Involvement of Confucian Harmony (α = 0.819)		5.210	.865	.503	.791
CICH1—I am concerned about the Confucian harmony between human beings and nature/animals.	.797
CICH2—I am interested in the Confucian harmony between human beings and nature/animals.	.811
CICH3—I believe animals have emotions and human beings should conserve natural settings.	.813
CICH4—I believe human beings should engage with nature and other species in a more ethical and harmonious way.	.801
Ascribed Responsibility (α = 0.925)		5.295	1.061	.809	.927
AR1—I feel jointly responsible for the negative consequences (e.g., excessive commercial exploitation of animals, and animal cruelty) caused by behaviors in animal-based tourism.	.938
AR2—I feel partly responsible for the negative consequences (e.g., excessive commercial exploitation of animals and animal cruelty) arising from activities in animal-based tourism.	.947
AR3—I believe that every tourist is partly responsible for the negative consequences (e.g., excessive commercial exploitation of animals and animal cruelty) that arise from activities in animal-based tourism.	.911
Personal Norm (α = 0.906)		5.471	.978	.695	.901
PN1—I feel morally obliged to behave ethically in animal-based tourism.	.894
PN2—Regardless of what other people do, because of my own values/principles, I feel that I should behave in an ethical manner when participating in animal tourism.	.846
PN3—I feel that it is important to reduce or limit the harm to animals and behave ethically while participating in animal-based tourism.	.901
PN4—I feel a moral obligation to address the ethical issues (excessive commercial exploitation of animals and animal cruelty), and to make efforts to achieve harmonious relationships between humans and other species in animal-based tourism.	.904
Social Norm (α = 0.944)		5.115	1.162	.848	.944
SN1—Most people who are important to me think I should participate in animal-based tourism in an ethical manner.	.940
SN2—Most people who are important to me would want me to participate in animal-based tourism in an ethical manner.	.952
SN3—People whose opinions I value would prefer me participate in animal-based tourism in an ethical manner.	.952
Attitude (α = 0.947)		5.515	1.204	.803	.942
For me, participating in animal-based tourism in an ethical manner is …
AT1—Foolish (1)/ Wise (7)	.921
AT2—Harmful (1)/ Beneficial (7)	.925
AT3—Unpleasant (1)/ Pleasant (7)	.929
AT4—Bad (1)/ Good (7)	.943
Behavioral Intentions on Animal-based Tourism (α = 0.933)		5.483	.998	.730	.931
BIAT1—I will make an effort to participate in animal-based tourism in an ethical manner.	.901
BIAT2—I plan to participate in animal-based tourism in an ethical manner.	.869
BIAT3—I will engage in animal-based tourism activities with ethical behavior.	.904
BIAT4—I will attempt to convince some of the people I know to engage in animal-based tourism with ethical behavior.	.906
BIAT5—I will support relevant legislation and regulations that are conductive to the healthy development of animal-based tourism.	.870
Perceptions of animal protection (α = 0.895)		4.681	1.081	.743	.896
POAP1—I feel quite knowledgeable about animal protection.	.893
POAP2—Compared with the average person, I know a lot about the significance of animal protection.	.923
POAP3—Compared with people who participate in animal-based tourism frequently, I know some phenomena and behaviors that are detrimental to the survival and protection of animals, as well as additional negative effects of such phenomena and behaviors.	.912
Model fit statistics: χ²= 1557.333, df =872, p < .001, χ²/df = 1.786, CFI = .954, IFI = .954, RMSEA = .048.

Note: loading is factor loading coefficient. α is Cronbach’s alpha representing internal consistency. SD: standardized deviation; AVE: average variance extracted; CR: composite reliability; CFI: comparative fit index; IFI: incremental fit index; RMSEA: root-mean-square error of approximation.

Structural equation modeling

The SEM results in Table 3 and Figure 2 show that the model fit (χ²= 2127.926, df = 799, p < .001; χ²/df = 2.663; CFI = .905; IFI = .906; TLI = .898; RMSEA = .069) was acceptable. Biospheric value (β = .631; p < .001) and altruistic value (β = .249; p < .001) significantly influenced ethical beliefs. Ethical beliefs (β = .741; p < .001), media coverage (β = .170; p < .001), and CICH (β = .162; p < .001) had significant effects on awareness of ethical issues, which played a significant role in affecting ascribed responsibility (β = .951; p < .001). Ascribed responsibility had significant effects on attitude (β = .386; p < .001), personal norm (β = .684; p < .001), and social norm (β = .835; p < .001), respectively. Personal norm was significantly influenced by attitude (β = .119; p < .001) and social norm (β = .157; p < .001). Also, attitude (β = .283; p < .001) and personal norm (β = .698; p < .001) were shown to have significant effects on behavioral intentions on animal-based tourism. In contrast, social norm (β = –.020; p > .05) did not show a significant impact on behavioral intentions on animal-based tourism. Thus, the proposed Hypotheses 1–14 were supported, with the exception of Hypothesis 12.

Table 3.

Results of hypothesis testing.

Hypothesis	Standardized coefficients	t-value	Supported
H1: BV→EB	.631	11.269***	YES
H2: AV→EB	.249	6.248***	YES
H3: EB→AOEI	.741	11.880***	YES
H4: AOEI→AR	.951	16.395***	YES
H5: AR→AT	.386	6.095***	YES
H6: AR→PN	.684	11.704***	YES
H7: AR→SN	.835	14.928***	YES
H8: AT →PN	.119	4.040***	YES
H9: SN→PN	.157	3.472***	YES
H10: AT→BIAT	.283	7.267***	YES
H11: PN→BIAT	.698	9.245***	YES
H12: SN→BIAT	-.020	-.371	NO
H13: MC→AOEI	.170	4.665***	YES
H14: CICH→AOEI	.162	4.055***	YES
Goodness-of-fit statistics: χ²= 2127.926 (df =799, p < .001), χ²/df =2.663, RMSEA = .069, CFI = .905, IFI = .906.

Note 1: RMSEA = root-mean-square error of approximation; CFI = confirmatory fit index; IFI = incremental fit index. ***p < .001, **p < .01, and *p < .05.

Note 2: BV: biospheric value; AV: altruistic value; EB: ethical beliefs; MC: media coverage; AOEI: awareness of ethical issues; CICH: cultural involvement of Confucian harmony; AR: ascribed responsibility; PN: personal norm; SN: social norm; AT: attitude; BIAT: behavioral intentions on animal-based tourism.

Moderation effects

The survey sample was divided into two groups: strong and weak perceptions of animal protection (192 cases, M = 5.46; 154 cases, M = 3.71), using the K-means cluster analysis. A baseline model was generated with these two groups, all variable loadings were constrained to be equal, and associated pathways were estimated freely. The baseline model was found to satisfactorily fit the data (χ²= 3152.225, df =1598, p < .001; χ²/df = 1.973; RMSEA = .053; CFI = .884; IFI = .885). The differences between the baseline model and nested models were calculated using a chi-square test. Only the chi-square differences of three paths from ascribed responsibility to personal norm (Δχ²(1) = 0.074, p < .05) and attitude (Δχ²(1) = 0.058 and p < .05), and from attitude to behavioral intentions on animal-based tourism (Δχ²(1) = 0.063 and p < .05) were statistically significant between the two groups with strong and weak perceptions of animal protection, which supported Hypotheses 16e, 16g, and 16k. The relationships between ascribed responsibility and personal norms (β = .760; p < .001), ascribed responsibility and attitude (β = .436; p < .001), and attitude and behavioral intentions on animal-based tourism (β = .350; p < .001) were stronger in the group with higher perceptions of animal protection. There were no statistically significant chi-square differences for additional paths among study variables between these two groups, thus Hypotheses 16a, 16b, 16c, 16d, 16f, 16 h, 16i, 16j, and 16 l were rejected. The multi-group invariance test results are shown in Table 4.

Table 4.

Results of the structural-invariance model test.

Paths				Strong perceptions of animal protection (n = 192, M = 5.46)		Weak perceptions of animal protection (n = 154, M = 3.71)		Baseline model (freely estimated)	Nested model (equally restricted)
Paths				β	t-value	β	t-value	Baseline model (freely estimated)	Nested model (equally restricted)
H16a:	BV	→	EB	.512	6.669***	.688	8.393***	χ²(1598)= 3152.225	χ²(1599)= 3154.337
H16b:	AV	→	EB	.317	5.077***	.205	3.374***	χ²(1598)= 3152.225	χ²(1599)= 3153.447
H16c:	EB	→	AOEI	.864	7.677***	.651	8.508***	χ²(1598)= 3152.225	χ²(1599)= 3154.327
H16d:	AOEI	→	AR	.887	11.454***	.990	10.705***	χ²(1598)= 3152.225	χ²(1599)= 3153.189
H16e:	AR	→	PN	.760	9.067***	.563	7.117***	χ²(1598)= 3152.225	χ²(1599)= 3155.428
H16f:	PN	→	BIAT	.633	6.170***	.827	7.254***	χ²(1598)= 3152.225	χ²(1599)= 3153.972
H16g:	AR	→	AT	.436	2.662**	.255	5.006***	χ²(1598)= 3152.225	χ²(1599)= 3155.805
H16h:	AR	→	SN	.836	9.909***	.734	9.751***	χ²(1598)= 3152.225	χ²(1599)= 3153.053
H16i:	AT	→	PN	.112	2.707**	.153	3.457***	χ²(1598)= 3152.225	χ²(1599)= 3152.674
H16j:	SN	→	PN	.167	2.724**	.185	2.772**	χ²(1598)= 3152.225	χ²(1599)= 3152.262
H16k:	AT	→	BIAT	.350	6.129***	.224	3.765***	χ²(1598)= 3152.225	χ²(1599)= 3155.684
H16l:	SN	→	BIAT	.006	.073	-.053	-.677	χ²(1598)= 3152.225	χ²(1599)= 3152.500
Baseline model Goodness-of-fit: χ²= 3152.225 (df = 1598, p < .001), χ²/df = 1.973, RMSEA = .053, CFI = .884, IFI = .885.
Chi-square difference test:
△χ²(1) = 0.146, p > 0.05 H16a: Not supported
△χ²(1) = 0.269, p > 0.05 H16b: Not supported
△χ²(1) = 0.147, p > 0.05 H16c: Not supported
△χ²(1) = 0.326, p > 0.05 H16d: Not supported
△χ²(1) = 0.074, p < 0.05, H16e: Supported (Groups are different at the model)
△χ²(1) = 0.186, p > 0.05 H16f: Not supported
△χ²(1) = 0.058, p < 0.05, H16g: Supported(Groups are different at the model)
△χ²(1) = 0.363, p > 0.05 H16h: Not supported
△χ²(1) = 0.503, p > 0.05 H16i: Not supported
△χ²(1) = 0.847, p > 0.05 H16j: Not supported
△χ²(1) = 0.063, p < 0.05, H16k: Supported (Groups are different at the model)
△χ²(1) = 0.600, p > 0.05 H16l: Not supported

Note 1: RMSEA = root-mean-square error of approximation; CFI = confirmatory fit index; IFI = incremental fit index.

***p < .001 **p < .01, and *p < .05.

Necessary condition analysis

A necessary condition analysis (NCA) was conducted to demonstrate whether the cause was a subset of the outcome. A condition can be generally considered necessary if it has a consistency value of 0.9 or above (Ragin, 2008; Wattanacharoensil et al., 2024). Table 5 shows that none of antecedent conditions had a consistency value exceeding 0.9; that is, none of the antecedent variables were identified as necessary conditions for generating strong or weak behavioral intentions on animal-based tourism.

Table 5.

Results of necessary conditions analysis.

Antecedent conditions	Outcomes
	BIAT		∼ BIAT
	Consistency	Coverage	Consistency	Coverage
BV	0.826	0.821	0.542	0.482
∼ BV	0.479	0.539	0.798	0.804
AV	0.757	0.834	0.527	0.519
∼ AV	0.563	0.571	0.831	0.754
EB	0.812	0.812	0.550	0.492
∼ EB	0.492	0.550	0.790	0.790
MC	0.714	0.770	0.569	0.549
∼ MC	0.581	0.601	0.762	0.705
AOEI	0.795	0.833	0.522	0.490
∼ AOEI	0.513	0.546	0.822	0.782
CICH	0.756	0.824	0.486	0.474
∼ CICH	0.518	0.530	0.820	0.750
AR	0.796	0.847	0.499	0.476
∼ AR	0.507	0.531	0.840	0.786
AT	0.828	0.836	0.531	0.480
∼ AT	0.485	0.536	0.819	0.810
PN	0.832	0.871	0.508	0.469
∼ PN	0.485	0.524	0.861	0.832
SN	0.823	0.816	0.564	0.500
∼ SN	0.496	0.560	0.792	0.800

Note 1: ∼ indicates negation condition.

Sufficient configurations

The fsQCA 3.0 software was used to identify the specific causal recipes. Calculations of solution coverage and consistency were the probability measures used to examine whether the computed recipe was reliable and validated, with critical values of 0.2 and 0.8, respectively (Kim et al., 2023). As displayed in Table 6, three configurations (coverage: 0.554, consistency: 0.919) were identified for predicting the formation of strong behavioral intentions relating to animal-based tourism. Specifically, Model 1 demonstrates that when tourists were rated as having strong biospheric value, altruism value, ethical beliefs, awareness of ethical issues, cultural involvement of Confucian harmony, ascribed responsibility, personal norms, social norms, and attitude, they were in an environment with media coverage about ethical animal-based tourism, they were more likely to form strong intentions to behave ethically and responsibly when undertaking animal-based tourism. Model 2 indicates that once tourists are under the synergistic influence of strong biospheric value, altruism value, ethical beliefs, awareness of ethical issues, cultural involvement of Confucian harmony, ascribed responsibility, attitude, personal norms, and social norms, strong intentions to behave ethically and responsibly when undertaking animal-based tourism will be more obvious. Model 3 illustrates that even if altruism value, ethical beliefs, attitude, perception of media coverage, awareness of ethical issues, cultural involvement of Confucian harmony, ascribed responsibility, personal norms, and social norms are at a lower level, as long as tourists have stronger biospheric value, robust behavioral intentions to behave ethically and responsibly when engaging in animal-based tourism can also be achieved. Conversely, two configuration models provided causal recipes for weak behavioral intentions with regard to animal-based tourism (coverage: 0.563, consistency: 0.911). The first model shows that weak behavioral intentions were caused by weak altruism value, ethical beliefs, media coverage, awareness of ethical issues, cultural involvement of Confucian harmony, ascribed responsibility, personal norms, social norms, and attitude. Alternatively, although tourists may be synergistically influenced by positive configuration of all other study variables, if their attitude is relatively negative, their intentions to behave responsibly in animal-based tourism may be weak.

Table 6.

Results of sufficient causal configurations.

Models for predicting strong behavioral intentions on animal-based tourism	Raw coverage	Unique coverage	Consistency
BIAT = f(BV, AV, EB, MC, AOEI, CICH, AR, AT, PN, SN)
M1: BVAVEBMCAOEICICHARATPN*SN	0.415	0.031	0.962
M2: BVAVEBAOEICICHARATPNSN	0.435	0.049	0.988
M3: BV∼AV∼EB∼MC∼AOEI∼CICH∼AR∼AT∼PN*∼SN	0.232	0.081	0.867
Solution coverage: 0.554
Solution consistency: 0.919

Models for predicting weak behavioral intentions on animal-based tourism	Raw coverage	Unique coverage	Consistency
∼ BIAT = f(BV, AV, EB, MC, AOEI, CICH, AR, AT, PN, SN)
M1: ∼AV∼EB∼MC∼AOEI∼CICH∼AR∼AT∼PN∼SN	0.493	0.332	0.975
M2: BVAVEBMCAOEICICHAR∼ATPN*SN	0.231	0.070	0.840
Solution coverage: 0.563
Solution consistency: 0.911

Note: M stands for model. BIAT: behavioral intentions on animal-based tourism; BV: biospheric value; AV: altruistic value; EB: ethical beliefs; MC: media coverage; AOEI: awareness of ethical issues; CICH: cultural involvement of Confucian harmony; AR: ascribed responsibility; PN: personal norm; SN: social norm; AT: attitude. ∼ indicates negation condition.

Discussion

Theoretic contribution

This study provides significant theoretical implications for individuals’ psychology and ethical behaviors. Firstly, the constituent variables of VBN and NAM (i.e., biospheric value, altruistic value, ethical beliefs, awareness of ethical issues, ascribed responsibility, and personal norm) were identified as the key predictors for behavioral intentions relating to animal-based tourism, which is consistent with the outcomes of previous tourism research on the NAM and self-interested processes in tourists’ pro-environmental and ethical behaviors (Chi et al., 2023; Kiatkawsin et al., 2020; Kim and Hwang, 2020; Meng et al., 2024). This resonates with the “equal consideration of interests” principle (Singer, 2013): that the interests of animals should not be subject to unfair treatment based on individual characteristics. Secondly, in the context of animal-based tourism, the direct relationships between attitude to personal norm and behavioral intentions, and between social norm and behavioral intentions, were confirmed, which is consistent with the previous studies using the TPB to evaluate the activation of moral norms and pro-environmental actions in the research contexts of festival tourism and green hotels (Chi et al., 2022, 2023). However, the positive relationship between social norm and behavioral intentions on animal-based tourism was not supported, indicating that social norm relating to animal-based tourism do not seem to create a unified standard or a strong force to influence the ethically responsible behavior of tourists. However, the fsQCA results indicated that the identified causal recipes with stronger social norm can lead to either strong or weak behavioral intentions on animal-based tourism. This also implies that social norms can play a significant role in affecting the formation of different levels of tourists’ ethically behavioral intentions, depending on how social norm interact with other antecedent conditions.

The empirical findings also verified that media coverage significantly influences awareness of ethical issues, leading to ascribed responsibility toward animal-based tourism. Media coverage can be considered an essential source of information for understanding animal-based tourism, which has been shown to have an impact on problem awareness and personal norm activation (Han et al., 2021; Liu and Li, 2021). Fakfare et al. (2023) have also linked media influence with Stimulus-Organism-Response (SOR) theory to explain the formation of behavioral intentions, revealing that media reports on negative behaviors related to animal exploitation and abuse, serving as external stimuli, could play a crucial role in raising tourists’ awareness and concern for animal welfare and influence their ethically responsible behaviors. Moreover, research findings confirmed that cultural involvement of Confucian harmony had significant impact on the awareness of ethical issues in animal-based tourism contexts. This finding is consistent with a study on smart tourists’ environmentally responsible behavior (Kiatkawsin et al., 2020), which revealed the significance of cultural involvement in affecting individuals’ awareness of consequences and ascription of responsibility. It confirms the fact that Confucian philosophy is often linked with the awareness of environmental or ethical issues in various contexts, including animal-based tourism (Meng et al., 2024; Wan et al., 2022). Li and Wei (2023) have declared that to some extent, Confucian Eco-Ethics could serve as a value guide to teach humans about solving some of the dilemmas related to sustainable development.

From the perspective of methodological approaches, in addition to SEM, this study used fsQCA to asymmetrically determine the complex causal recipes for behavioral intentions relating to animal-based tourism, enriching the understanding of the psychological and normative processes involved in tourists’ ethically responsible behavior. While this approach is beginning to become efficient in predicting the formation of behavioral intention (Liao et al., 2023), its application in the animal-based tourism industry remains limited (Kim et al., 2023; Wattanacharoensil et al., 2024). The fsQCA results show that various configurations can lead to different levels of behavioral intentions relating to animal-based tourism. For instance, three identified causal configurations all revealed that a high level of biospheric value is important to achieve positive behavioral intentions related to animal-based tourism, as supported by Wattanacharoensil et al. (2024), who found that a series of cognitive, affective, and normative antecedents, involving altruistic value, ethical beliefs, awareness of ethical issues, social norm, and personal norm, were asymmetrically configured to provide causal recipes for intentions on animal ethics in tourism.

It is also important to note that although some animal-related tourism studies drew attention to the anthropocentric nature of tourist experience and satisfaction (Flower et al., 2021; Tolls and Carr, 2021), the present study is not solely limited to a human-centered perspective of animal-based tourism development. The proposed theoretic framework was not only to detect more insights on the antecedents influencing the formation of ethically responsible behaviors, but also to consider the potential factors influencing the achievement of a more balanced and harmonious coexistence in the context of animal-based tourism, in terms of animal wellbeing or welfare. The present study successfully identified that the moderator variable (perceptions of animal protection) had a moderating role in affecting relationships between ascribed responsibility and personal and social norms, and between attitude to behavioral intentions on animal-based tourism, confirming that deeper perceptions based on an individual’s own knowledge of an event or phenomenon can regulate the formation of their normative beliefs and behavioral intentions (Chi et al., 2022; Kim and Hwang, 2020). Different perceptions of animal protection could moderately affect the formation of individuals’ beliefs, moral norms, social norms, and behavioral intentions. This study emphasizes the significance of Confucian Eco-Ethics, animal protection and welfare in animal-based tourism development, which resonates with the studies on animal welfare and protection movements (Broad, 2018, 2020), avoiding the limits of prior animal-related tourism studies from an anthropocentric perspective, and instead analyzes tourists’ behavioral intentions with regard to animal-based tourism with an ethically responsible orientation.

Practical contribution

Based on the empirical findings of this study, a series of measures that contribute to tourists’ ethical responsibility behaviors in the context of animal-based tourism can be discussed. First of all, animal-based tourism practitioners should pay full attention to the educational significance of animal-based tourism (Fennell et al., 2024). It is important to reinforce tourists’ biospheric values, altruistic values, ethical beliefs, awareness of ethical issues, ascribed responsibility, and personal norms relating to animal-based tourism. Managers of animal-based tourism sites are encouraged to collaborate with animal protection associations and non-governmental organizations to examine any cruelty involved in animal-based tourism (e.g., high-intensity animal training and animal abuse), publicize the adverse effects of tourists’ inappropriate behavior on the survival and welfare of animals, and emphasize the importance of ethically responsible behavior for the sustainable development of animal-based tourism, using slogans, videos, and other material to promote ethical sightseeing in animal-based tourism. These measures can significantly enhance travelers’ ethical beliefs and awareness of ethical issues involved in animal-based tourism through a higher level of biospheric value and altruistic value, which may further promote personal norms and ethically responsible behaviors in animal-based tourism.

Tourists’ understanding of animal-based tourism may be influenced by their personal biases and lack of professional knowledge. This requires media exposure and Confucian culture to play a positive role in guiding ethically responsible behaviors by raising tourists’ awareness of ethical issues in animal-based tourism. Animal-based tourism attractions can appropriately adopt mass media to introduce relevant Confucian culture to tourists by hosting Confucian culture forums, and showing the Confucian harmony emphasis on harmonious coexistence between humans and the natural world, which could significantly enhance travelers’ ethical beliefs and awareness of ethical issues relating to animal-based tourism (Meng et al., 2024; Wang et al., 2023). Also, since personal norms are significantly influenced by attitude and social norms, the operators of animal-based tourism need to be well informed about the legislation and regulations for animal welfare and protection (Duffy and Moore, 2011). Government agencies could also encourage community involvement in the marketing and operation of animal-based tourism, which would help to optimize existing social norms for animal welfare and protection. This would help to promote more ethical and harmonious attitudes in supporting the survival and welfare of other species.

Based on the moderating role of perceptions of animal protection in the proposed framework, animal-based tourism attractions could cooperate with non-government organizations to set up animal rescue centers of different sizes, and encourage more members of society to participate in related rescue activities, to enhance social influence and social norms on animal protection. Tourism value co-creation and destination pro-social/pro-environmental performance have received widespread attention from relevant experts, scholars, and the public (Chi et al., 2024), so animal-based tourism attractions should not only enhance co-creation, but also discuss with relevant stakeholders how to further optimize the living facilities and environments of animals, which will help to promote animal welfare and subjective well-being. Such approaches may also influence tourists’ attention and support for environmentally friendly animal-based tourism and enhance green experiences of animal-based tourism. In addition, the managers of animal-based tourism attractions could train employees in adhering to ethical principles at work and encourage them to remind tourists to ethically participate in animal-based tourism activities. TV programs could invite zoologists and internet celebrities, as ecological animal-based tourism ambassadors, to introduce animal protection, animal welfare, and the concept of a harmonious society, to mobilize tourists’ engagement in ethical and responsible behavior. It could be helpful to use digital technology and SNS platforms to enable tourists’ participation in animal rescue tourism activities and thus subtly enhance their perceptions of animal protection, ethical beliefs, perceived responsibility, and personal norms (Wong et al., 2023).

The causal recipes that were identified in the present study provided insightful practical implications for promoting tourists’ ethically responsible behaviors in relation to animal-based tourism. Multi-party collaboration is needed, including related stakeholders, non-government organizations, and communities. The fsQCA and NCA results showed that the generation of ethically responsible behavior in tourists is an intricate process, which requires relevant practitioners to have a comprehensive understanding of value orientations, normative beliefs, and global motives, with the additional considerations of media coverage, Confucian culture and perceptions of animal protection. The fsQCA results emphasized the significance of biospheric value and attitude in affecting tourists’ behavioral intentions with relation to animal-based tourism. Therefore, when stakeholders take into account economic factors such as business operating budgets, biospheric value should be given top priority, as it appears in all predictive combinations, having a strong effect on behavioral intentions related to animal-based tourism. Tourists can experience the wonders of the biosphere firsthand through eco-experience activities such as eco-adventures, and biodiversity observation, thereby enhancing their understanding of the value of the biosphere. Tourists’ attitudes towards animal-based tourism should also be valued, as this factor appears in all predictive combinations affecting weak behavioral intentions related to animal-based tourism. Animal-based tourism operators are encouraged to conduct a series of surveys to predict tourist attitudes when developing new animal-based tourism projects. The practical implications derived in this study are essential references and guidelines for promoting green animal-based tourism and ethically responsible behaviors in tourists.

Conclusion

There are growing calls to do more to promote the sustainable development of animal-based tourism, which is closely related to tourists’ ethically responsible behaviors (Fennell, 2023; Kim et al., 2023; Meng et al., 2024; Thomsen et al., 2023). Our research verified that the VBN theory and the NAM were effective in describing the formation of tourists’ ethically responsible behavior in the context of animal-based tourism. This study also identified the additional antecedents (media coverage and cultural involvement of Confucian harmony) that play significant roles in activating tourists’ awareness of ethical issues with regard to animal-based tourism. Attitudes and social norms, as crucial components of the TPB, also significantly influence personal norms and behavioral intention in relation to animal-based tourism. Based on the complex nature of behavioral research, at the methodological level, this research not only clearly examined the linear relationships between study variables, but also identified the potential causal recipes that lead to different levels of behavioral intentions. The constructed framework, with SEM and configuration models, elucidates the intricate psychological and normative mechanisms involved in tourists’ behavioral intentions with regard to animal-based tourism, which theoretically provides a valuable reference for better understanding the value orientations, global motives, and normative behaviors of potential tourists interested in any types of animal-based tourism. Overall, the academic and managerial implications are expected to provide novel insights for activating individuals’ ethically responsible behaviors in animal-based tourism, enriching the existing research directions in terms of the educational significance of animal-based tourism for individuals’ pro-environmental and pro-social behaviors.

Limitation and future research

Considering that there are differences between the natural and human environments and the social norms for animal-based tourism may also vary between countries and regions, the generalizability of the research findings needs further verification, as the survey respondents were all Korean, with animal-based tourism experience. This implies that cross-national research on animal-based tourism would be worthwhile. Behavioral intentions with regard to animal-based tourism involve various aspects, and while this study focused on intentions to practice ethically responsible behavior, additional facets such as willingness to support animal welfare could be further investigated. Also, the findings of the current study need to be read with caution, as some of the experiences reported by respondents were not recent, with some dating back up to 5 years. In addition, this research primarily focused on relatively easily observable animals that are included in tourism activities, even including wild animals. Other forms of animal-based tourism, such as dog sledding, horse riding, petting zoos, cat cafés, and donkey rides, among other domestic animal-based tourism activities, were not adequately represented in the current study. Future studies could broaden the scope of species, incorporating a wider variety of animals such as birds, whales, and pandas. Meanwhile, one additional point that needs to be mentioned is that the animal-based tourism mentioned in this study is different from pet tourism, so the research findings should be referenced with caution in the context of pet tourism. Lastly, experimental design approaches could be applied in conjunction with the proposed research framework in future, related studies.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Xiaoting Chi

Seongseop (Sam) Kim

Amare Yaekob Chiriko

Heesup Han

Bo Meng

References

Äijälä

(2021) Mobile video ethnography for evoking animals in tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 89: 103203.

Alonso

González-Montaña

Lomillos

(2020) Consumers’ concerns and perceptions of farm animal welfare. Animals 10(3): 385.

Bagozzi

(1988) On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 16: 74–94.

Bersaglio

Margulies

(2022) Extinctionscapes: spatializing the commodification of animal lives and afterlives in conservation landscapes. Social & Cultural Geography 23(1): 10–28.

Bertella

(2013) Ethical content of pictures of animals in tourism promotion. Tourism Recreation Research 38(3): 281–294.

Bertella

(2021) Animal-based experiences and animal experiences: farm animals’ perspective on human leisure in rural settings. Annals of Leisure Research 24(5): 631–645.

Broad

(2018) Effective animal advocacy: effective altruism, the social economy, and the animal protection movement. Agriculture and Human Values 35(4): 777–789.

Broad

(2020) Using focus groups to explore public perceptions of legal rights for animals. Anthrozoös 33(5): 613–627.

Caplow

(2021) Using value-belief-norm theory to explore visitor responses to education programs at animal-themed facilities. The Journal of Environmental Education 52(3): 190–204.

10.

Chemli

Toanoglou

Valeri

(2022) The impact of COVID-19 media coverage on tourist's awareness for future travelling. Current Issues in Tourism 25(2): 179–186.

11.

Chi

Cheng

Zhou

, et al. (2024) Investigation on driving mechanism of heritage tourism consumption: a multi-method analytical approach. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing 41(8): 1141–1160.

12.

Chi

Han

Kim

(2022) Protecting yourself and others: festival tourists’ pro-social intentions for wearing a mask, maintaining social distancing, and practicing sanitary/hygiene actions. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 30(8): 1915–1936.

13.

Chi

Meng

Lee

, et al. (2023) Pro-environmental employees and sustainable hospitality and tourism businesses: Exploring strategic reasons and global motives for green behaviors. Business Strategy and the Environment 32(7): 4167–4182.

14.

Chi

Zhou

Cai

, et al. (2024) Investigation into the festival brand co-creation mechanism: extended application of the customer-based brand equity model. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing 41(3): 377–395.

15.

Deng

Peng

Shen

(2023) Back to a post-pandemic city: the impact of media coverage on revisit intention of Macau. Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality & Tourism 24(1): 1–23.

16.

Denley

Woosnam

Ribeiro

, et al. (2020) Individuals’ intentions to engage in last chance tourism: applying the value-belief-norm model. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 28(11): 1860–1881.

17.

Duffy

Moore

(2011) Global regulations and local practices: the politics and governance of animal welfare in elephant tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 19(4–5): 589–604.

18.

Fakfare

Lee

Kim

, et al. (2023) Animal ethics and tourism: deepening a Stimulus–Organism–Response (SOR) framework. Journal of Travel Research 63(4): 940–958.

19.

Fakfare

Manosuthi

Lee

, et al. (2024) Investigating the formation of ethical animal-related tourism behaviors: a self-interest and pro-social theoretic approach. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research: 1–19.

20.

Fennell

(2012) Tourism, animals and utilitarianism. Tourism Recreation Research 37(3): 239–249.

21.

Fennell

(2013) Tourism and animal welfare. Tourism Recreation Research 38(3): 325–340.

22.

Fennell

(2014) Exploring the boundaries of a new moral order for tourism's global code of ethics: an opinion piece on the position of animals in the tourism industry. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 22(7): 983–996.

23.

Fennell

(2020) Tourism and wildlife photography codes of ethics: developing a clearer picture. Annals of Tourism Research 85: 103023.

24.

Fennell

(2022a) An animal welfare literacy framework for tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 96: 103461.

25.

Fennell

(2022b) Bridging the global-local animal-based tourism divide. Annals of Tourism Research 96: 103459.

26.

Fennell

(2023) Empathy in animal-based tourism contrasting constructed care and care ethics at a captive wildlife venue. Tourism Recreation Research: 1–16.

27.

Fennell

Kline

Mkono

, et al. (2024) Tourism, animals & the vacant niche: a scoping review and pedagogical agenda. Current Issues in Tourism: 1–29.

28.

Fennell

Sheppard

(2021) Tourism, animals and the scales of justice. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 29(2–3): 314–335.

29.

Fennell

Thomsen

(2021) Tourism & animal suffering: mapping the future. Annals of Tourism Research 91: 103317.

30.

Flower

Burns

Jones

(2021) How tourist preference and satisfaction can contribute to improved welfare standards at elephant tourism venues in Thailand. Animals 11(4): 1094.

31.

Font

Bonilla-Priego

Kantenbacher

(2019) Trade associations as corporate social responsibility actors: an institutional theory analysis of animal welfare in tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 27(1): 118–138.

32.

Fritzell

Hvinden

Kautto

, et al. (2005) Nordic Welfare States in the European Context. London: Routledge.

33.

Graf-Vlachy

Oliver

Banfield

, et al. (2020) Media coverage of firms: background, integration, and directions for future research. Journal of Management 46(1): 36–69.

34.

Han

(2015) Travelers’ pro-environmental behavior in a green lodging context: converging value-belief-norm theory and the theory of planned behavior. Tourism Management 47: 164–177.

35.

Han

(2020) Theory of green purchase behavior (TGPB): a new theory for green hotel and green restaurant products. Business Strategy and the Environment 29(6): 2815–2828.

36.

Han

Chi

Kim

, et al. (2020) Activators of airline customers’ sense of moral obligation to engage in pro-social behaviors: impact of CSR in the Korean marketplace. Sustainability 12(10): 4334.

37.

Han

Hwang

Lee

(2017) The value-belief-emotion-norm model: investigating customers’ eco-friendly behavior. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing 34(5): 590–607.

38.

Han

Wang

Scott

(2021) Social media activation of pro-environmental personal norms: an exploration of informational, normative and emotional linkages to personal norm activation. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing 38(6): 568–581.

39.

Wang

, et al. (2023) Modeling tourists’ pro-environmental behavior: a combination of the value-belief-norm theory and environmental identity theory. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management: 1–24.

40.

Herdoiza

Worrell

van den , et al. (2024) Including animal welfare targets in the SDGs: the case of animal farming. Agriculture and Human Values 41(2): 815–830.

41.

Hooper

(2023) Thinking with civets: the role of zoos in the decolonisation of animal tourism. Animals 13(11): 1739.

42.

Hoy

Stangl

Morgan

(2023) The social behavior of traveling with dogs: drivers, behavioral tendencies, and experiences. Journal of Vacation Marketing: 1–20.

43.

Kiatkawsin

Sutherland

Lee

(2020) Determinants of smart tourist environmentally responsible behavior using an extended norm-activation model. Sustainability 12(12): 4934.

44.

Kim

Fakfare

Lee

, et al. (2023) Determinants of travelers’ image and desire toward animal tourism. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research 28(10): 1088–1105.

45.

Kim

Hwang

(2020) Merging the norm activation model and the theory of planned behavior in the context of drone food delivery services: does the level of product knowledge really matter? Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 42: 1–11.

46.

Kline

Fischer

(2023) Morality on holiday: inspiring ethical behaviour in animal-based tourism through non-moral values. Tourism Recreation Research 48(2): 147–158.

47.

Koehn

(2022) Applying Aristotelian and Confucian virtue ethics to humane work in the business context. Humanistic Management Journal 7(2): 189–209.

48.

Köllen

Schneeberger

(2023) Avoiding unnecessary suffering: towards a moral minimum standard for humans’ responsibility for animal welfare. Business Ethics, the Environment & Responsibility 32(4): 1139–1149.

49.

Huang

, et al. (2021) Determinants of tourists’ intentions to agrotourism in Vietnam from perspectives of value–belief–norm theory. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing 38(9): 881–899.

50.

Lee

(2011) The role of media exposure, social exposure and biospheric value orientation in the environmental attitude-intention-behavior model in adolescents. Journal Of Environmental Psychology 31(4): 301–308.

51.

Düring

(2022) Harmony as a virtue in confucianism. In Li

Düring

(eds) The Virtue of Harmony (21–C1.P56). New York: Oxford University Press.

52.

Wei

(2023) What Confucian eco-ethics can teach us about solving the dilemma of interpreting the concept of sustainability. Religions 14(9): 1216.

53.

Liao

Lin

Xie

(2023) Effects of short-form video application users’ guanxi on intention to visit rural tourism destinations: The moderating role of tourism fatigue. Journal of Vacation Marketing 13567667231171457: 1–23.

54.

Liu

(2021) Pro-environmental behavior predicted by media exposure, SNS involvement, and cognitive and normative factors. Environmental Communication 15(7): 954–968.

55.

Meng

Chi

Kim

, et al. (2024) Norm activation and self-interested process in ethical behaviours for animal tourism: exploring the function of animal co-creation and Asian cultural values. Current Issues in Tourism 27(13): 2066–2082.

56.

Mkono

Holder

(2019) The future of animals in tourism recreation: social media as spaces of collective moral reflexivity. Tourism Management Perspectives 29: 1–8.

57.

Moorhouse

D'Cruze

Macdonald

(2017) Unethical use of wildlife in tourism: what's the problem, who is responsible, and what can be done? Journal of Sustainable Tourism 25(4): 505–516.

58.

Onwezen

Antonides

Bartels

(2013) The Norm Activation Model: an exploration of the functions of anticipated pride and guilt in pro-environmental behaviour. Journal of Economic Psychology 39: 141–153.

59.

Orams

(2002) Feeding wildlife as a tourism attraction: a review of issues and impacts. Tourism Management 23(3): 281–293.

60.

Packer

Ballantyne

Hughes

(2014) Chinese And Australian tourists’ attitudes to nature, animals and environmental issues: implications for the design of nature-based tourism experiences. Tourism Management 44: 101–107.

61.

Pelé

Georges

Matsuzawa

, et al. (2021) Perceptions of human-animal relationships and their impacts on animal ethics, law and research. Frontiers in Psychology 11: 631238.

62.

Petetta

Ciccocioppo

(2021) Public perception of laboratory animal testing: historical, philosophical, and ethical view. Addiction Biology 26(6): e12991.

63.

Ragin

(2008) Measurement versus calibration: A set-theoretic approach.

64.

Rist

Dahdouh-Guebas

(2006) Ethnosciences––A step towards the integration of scientific and indigenous forms of knowledge in the management of natural resources for the future. Environment, Development and Sustainability 8: 467–493.

65.

Rizzolo

(2023) Wildlife tourism and consumption. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 31(5): 1181–1194.

66.

Ryan

(1998) Saltwater crocodiles as tourist attractions. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 6(4): 314–327.

67.

Sinclair

Lee

Hötzel

, et al. (2022) International perceptions of animals and the importance of their welfare. Frontiers in Animal Science 3: 1–23.

68.

Singer

(2013). Equality for animals? In Ethics, Humans and Other Animals. London: Routledge, pp. 169–177.

69.

Sison

AJG

Ferrero

Redín

(2020) Some virtue ethics implications from Aristotelian and Confucian perspectives on family and business. Journal of Business Ethics 165: 241–254.

70.

Sniehotta

Presseau

Araújo-Soares

(2014) Time to retire the theory of planned behaviour. Health Psychology Review 8(1): 1–7.

71.

Stren

(2000) Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behaviour. Journal of Social Issues 56(3): 407–424.

72.

Suárez-Rojas

González Hernández

León

(2022) Do tourists value responsible sustainability in whale-watching tourism? Exploring sustainability and consumption preferences. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 30(8): 2053–2072.

73.

Thomsen

Copeland

, et al. (2023) Multispecies livelihoods: a posthumanist approach to wildlife ecotourism that promotes animal ethics. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 31(5): 1195–1213.

74.

Tkaczynski

Xie

Rundle-Thiele

(2023) The role of environmental knowledge and interest on perceived value and satisfaction. Journal of Vacation Marketing 29(3): 428–444.

75.

Tolls

Carr

(2021) The role of nature on horse trail rides: tourist experience expectations. Current Issues in Tourism 24(9): 1257–1269.

76.

Trang

Lee

Han

(2019) How do green attributes elicit guest pro-environmental behaviors? The case of green hotels in Vietnam. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing 36(1): 14–28.

77.

Verma

Chandra

Kumar

(2019) Values and ascribed responsibility to predict consumers’ attitude and concern towards green hotel visit intention. Journal of Business Research 96: 206–216.

78.

Viskovic

(1993) Zootourism. Turizam 41(1–2): 23–25.

79.

Von Essen

Allen

(2021) Killing with kindness: when hunters want to let you know they care. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 26(2): 179–195.

80.

Von Essen

Lindsjö

Berg

(2020) Instagranimal: animal welfare and animal ethics challenges of animal-based tourism. Animals 10(10): 1830.

81.

Wan

Zhan

(2022) For harmony and democracy: secondary students’ views on the value of developing critical thinking in a Confucian heritage context. Thinking Skills and Creativity 44: 101031.

82.

Wang

Wan

, et al. (2023) Social norms and tourists’ pro-environmental behaviors: do ethical evaluation and Chinese cultural values matter? Journal of Sustainable Tourism 31(6): 1413–1429.

83.

Wattanacharoensil

Fakfare

Manosuthi

, et al. (2024) Determinants of traveler intention toward animal ethics in tourism: developing a causal recipe combining cognition, affect, and norm factors. Tourism Management 100: 104823.

84.

Wen

Huang

Ying

(2019) Relationships between Chinese cultural values and tourist motivations: a study of Chinese tourists visiting Israel. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 14: 100367.

85.

Whang

Yong

(2016) Pop culture, destination images, and visit intentions: theory and research on travel motivations of Chinese and Russian tourists. Journal of Business Research 69(2): 631–641.

86.

Winter

(2020) A review of research into animal ethics in tourism: launching the annals of tourism research curated collection on animal ethics in tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 84: 102989.

87.

Wong

Lin

Zhang

(2023) A techno-exchange engagement model of social media engagement: a social exchange and engagement theoretical synthesis. Journal of Vacation Marketing 29(3): 461–475.

88.

Ying

Wang

, et al. (2022) Examining tourists’ ethical perceptions of game eating. Tourism Management 91: 104498.

89.

Zhao

Rawwas

Zeng

(2020) How does past behaviour stimulate consumers’ intentions to repeat unethical behaviour? The roles of perceived risk and ethical beliefs. Business Ethics: A European Review 29(3): 602–616.

90.

Zhu

Chi

Ryu

H. B.

, et al. (2022). Traveler pro-social behaviors at heritage tourism sites. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 901530.