Mojtaba Sookhtanlou; Nejat Vahedi
Volume 6, Issue 3 , June 2018, , Pages 105-120
Abstract
The primary purpose of this study was to analyze the model of environmental behavior and the relationships among it's affecting factors and among visitors of the Shorabil tourism area in Ardabil province. The method of this study is descriptive-survey. The statistical population consisted of all visitors ...
Read More
The primary purpose of this study was to analyze the model of environmental behavior and the relationships among it's affecting factors and among visitors of the Shorabil tourism area in Ardabil province. The method of this study is descriptive-survey. The statistical population consisted of all visitors who came to the Shorabil Tourism Area. To determine the sample size, the Cochran formula was used in conditions with an unknown population size that the sample size was 320 (n = 320). Data were gathered in three different stages (multi-stage method) during July, August, and September (2017) using a simple random sampling method. The content validity of the research instrument (questionnaire) was evaluated using of experts and calculation of the AVE index. Also, the calculated values of discernment validity and reliability of the research instrument were also performed using Cronbach's alpha and composite reliability, which was of acceptable cost. Data analysis was done using SPSS and AMOS software. The findings showed that the majority of visitors (32.8%) had a relatively favorable environmental behavior. According to the results of the analysis of structural equations, knowledge, attitude, intention, and environmental perception variables, along with variables of education level and satisfaction of opportunities and opportunities, explain 59% of changes in the variance of environmental behavior variable. The most critical variables that describe the environmental behavior are essential, including environmental intention (path coefficient: 55.7%) in the role of a mediator variable, education (path coefficient: 38.1%), and satisfaction of facilities and opportunities (coefficient Path: 30.8%).
