Green hotels visit intention among young adults: integrating the familiarity, novelty, trust, perceived risk, and theory of planned behaviour

The study addresses the attitude–behaviour gap in green hotel consumption: despite growing environmental awareness, bookings remain stagnant. Extant works largely emphasise positive antecedents using TRA/TPB and related frameworks, with limited attention to negative perceptions and barriers, particularly in emerging contexts like China. This research extends TPB by integrating perceived risk (as a multidimensional construct), trust, familiarity, and novelty to explain young adults’ intention to visit green hotels. It investigates how attitude, subjective norm, and perceived behavioural control, along with trust, familiarity, novelty, and perceived risk, interplay to shape intention. Sixteen hypotheses (H1–H16) are proposed to test these relationships within an extended TPB model.

Theoretical background: TPB posits intention as driven by attitude, subjective norm, and perceived behavioural control (PBC). Given its extensibility, TPB has been widely applied to green behaviours. The review revisits the roles of attitude, subjective norm, and PBC in predicting intention, noting mixed findings and potential interrelations where subjective norm can shape both attitude and PBC. Contribution through extended TPB: Prior green-hotel studies underuse belief/voluntaristic elements (risk beliefs, outcome expectations) and trust, and have rarely incorporated familiarity and novelty. This study expands TPB by adding trust, perceived risk (second-order construct), familiarity, and novelty. Impact of trust: Trust reflects beliefs about reliability and ecological performance, potentially enhancing attitude, PBC, and intention. Impact of perceived risk: Defined as uncertainty and potential loss; in services and tourism, perceived risk influences attitudes and behavioural intentions. It can comprise financial, performance, functional, psychological, physical, time, and health risks. Familiarity: Accumulated direct/indirect experience influences perceptions, risk assessment, and behaviour. Novelty: The need for stimulation affects destination choice, risk appraisal, and attitudes. Conceptual model and hypotheses: H1 Attitude→Intention; H2 SN→Intention; H3 SN→Attitude; H4 SN→PBC; H5 PBC→Intention; H6 Trust→Attitude; H7 Trust→PBC; H8 Trust→Intention; H9 Perceived risk→Attitude; H10 Perceived risk→SN; H11 Perceived risk→PBC; H12 Perceived risk→Trust; H13 Familiarity→Attitude; H14 Familiarity→Perceived risk; H15 Novelty→Attitude; H16 Novelty→Perceived risk. The model treats perceived risk as a second-order construct formed by seven first-order risk dimensions.

Design: Positivist, explanatory research with cross-sectional survey. Sampling and participants: Non-probability, judgemental sampling targeting young adults in China who were 18–25 years old and had stayed at a green hotel in the past 12 months or planned to within 12 months. Data collection: Online self-administered questionnaire via wenjuan.com from 12/20/2023 to 01/06/2024; incentive RMB 3 per respondent. Total usable responses: 606. Instrument: Four sections with 7-point Likert scales (1=strongly disagree to 7=strongly agree). Perceived risk measured as a second-order construct with seven first-order dimensions: financial risk (3 items), performance risk (3), functional risk (3), psychological risk (3), physical risk (3), time risk (4; 1 item later dropped), and health risk (3). Other constructs: familiarity (4; 1 dropped), novelty (4; 1 dropped), trust (4; 1 dropped), attitude (4), subjective norm (3), PBC (3), intention (3). Items adapted from prior validated sources; translation/back-translation applied; expert validation and a pilot test (n=30) conducted. Controls: gender, age, education, income. Common method bias: Assured anonymity; Harman’s single-factor = 40.049% (<50%); full collinearity VIFs <10. Analysis: Structural equation modelling (SEM). Measurement model assessed via factor loadings, CR (>0.7), AVE (>0.5), and discriminant validity (AVE>MSV, AVE>ASV). Model fit indices reported. Structural model tested hypotheses H1–H16 with path coefficients, critical ratios, and significance levels.

Sample and data quality: Normality achieved (skewness −0.053 to 0.506; kurtosis 0.336 to 1.849). KMO=0.962; Bartlett’s p<0.001. Reliability: All Cronbach’s α >0.7. Measurement model: After dropping items (finance risk1, time risk4, familiarity4, novelty4, trust4), convergent and discriminant validity met. Fit: CMIN=3244.75, DF=907, CMIN/DF=3.577, p<0.001; CFI=0.929; TLI=0.919; NFI=0.905; IFI=0.929; AGFI=0.75; SRMR=0.0635; RMSEA=0.065. Structural model fit: CMIN=5270.696, DF=925, CMIN/DF=5.698, p<0.001; CFI=0.868; TLI=0.853; NFI=0.845; IFI=0.869; AGFI=0.677; RMSEA=0.088. Hypotheses testing (standardized β, C.R., p): - H1 Attitude→Intention: 0.386, 9.505, p<0.001 (supported). - H2 Subjective norm→Intention: 0.221, 4.875, p<0.001 (supported). - H3 Subjective norm→Attitude: 0.447, 15.553, p<0.001 (supported). - H4 Subjective norm→PBC: 0.664, 18.357, p<0.001 (supported). - H5 PBC→Intention: −0.070, −1.649, p=0.099 (not supported). - H6 Trust→Attitude: 0.315, 11.519, p<0.001 (supported). - H7 Trust→PBC: −0.013, −0.397, p=0.692 (not supported). - H8 Trust→Intention: 0.516, 13.285, p<0.001 (supported). - H9 Perceived risk→Attitude: 0.028, 0.777, p=0.437 (not supported). - H10 Perceived risk→Subjective norm: −0.162, −3.164, p=0.002 (supported). - H11 Perceived risk→PBC: −0.265, −6.627, p<0.001 (supported). - H12 Perceived risk→Trust: −0.114, −2.229, p=0.026 (supported). - H13 Familiarity→Attitude: −0.247, −5.376, p<0.001 (supported). - H14 Familiarity→Perceived risk: 0.503, 9.341, p<0.001 (supported). - H15 Novelty→Attitude: −0.590, −13.383, p<0.001 (supported). - H16 Novelty→Perceived risk: −0.288, −5.571, p<0.001 (supported). Second-order perceived risk: All first-order dimensions significantly loaded on perceived risk with standardized coefficients: financial 0.944 (R2≈89.1%), performance 0.889 (R2≈79.0%), functional 0.945 (R2≈89.3%), psychological 0.956 (R2≈91.3%), physical 0.925 (R2≈85.6%), time 0.743 (R2≈55.3%), health 0.920 (R2≈84.6%), all p<0.05. Key patterns: - Perceived risk depresses trust, subjective norm, and PBC but does not directly affect attitude. - Trust strongly boosts intention and improves attitude. - Subjective norm enhances attitude, PBC, and intention. - PBC does not translate to intention in this cohort. - Familiarity raises perceived risk and lowers attitude; novelty reduces perceived risk but also relates to a more negative attitude toward visiting green hotels.

The findings substantiate an extended TPB explaining young adults’ green-hotel visit intention by integrating negative evaluative factors and motivational beliefs. Attitude and subjective norm are central in driving intention, aligning with TPB, while PBC’s non-significance suggests that perceived resources/ability may be insufficient to overcome other concerns in this segment. Trust emerges as pivotal—mitigating uncertainty and strengthening favourable evaluations and intention—highlighting the need for credible environmental performance and communications. The multidimensional perceived risk construct significantly undermines subjective norm, PBC, and trust, indicating that risk perceptions propagate through social influence channels and capability beliefs to dampen intention. Contrary to some prior work, perceived risk does not directly shape attitude in this context, implying that young adults may compartmentalize risk away from overall evaluative judgements or that attitude is primarily norm- and trust-driven here. Familiarity’s positive effect on perceived risk and negative effect on attitude suggests that the information environment may emphasize trade-offs (e.g., costs, comfort, health/safety) relative to conventional hotels. Novelty reduces perceived risk but is associated with less favourable attitudes toward visiting green hotels, indicating that curiosity and desire for new experiences alone may not translate into positive evaluations of green hotels’ attributes. Overall, the study clarifies how negative beliefs (risk) and belief-based constructs (trust, familiarity, novelty) integrate with TPB to explain intention.

The study advances understanding of green-hotel visitation by empirically testing an extended TPB that integrates perceived risk (as a second-order construct with seven dimensions), trust, familiarity, and novelty among young adults in China. Attitude and subjective norm significantly predict intention; subjective norm also shapes attitude and PBC. Trust enhances attitude and intention, whereas PBC does not predict intention. Familiarity heightens perceived risk and lowers attitude; novelty reduces perceived risk yet is associated with a more negative attitude. Perceived risk undermines subjective norm, PBC, and trust, but not attitude. The validated multidimensional risk structure (financial, performance, functional, psychological, physical, time, health) offers a comprehensive lens for assessing green-hotel related risks. These contributions refine behavioural models for green hospitality and inform managerial strategies to bolster trust, manage risk perceptions, and leverage social influence. Future research can broaden contexts, incorporate additional psychological/contextual variables, and link intentions to actual visitation behaviour.

• Sample representativeness: Young adults (18–25) with relatively lower financial capacity were targeted; findings may not generalize to broader populations. - Context specificity: The green-hotel concept is relatively new in developing countries; results may be more applicable to similar settings and require re-examination elsewhere. - Single-country design: Cultural differences limit generalizability; cross-cultural studies are needed. - Intention–behaviour gap: Actual visits were not measured; future work should capture behaviours longitudinally or via tracking. - Model scope: Additional psychological/contextual variables could further extend TPB and improve predictive accuracy.