Proenvironmental Behavior: Critical Link Between Satisfaction and Place Attachment in Australia and Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study explores issues of scale equivalence and generalizability in national parks. Visitors' place satisfaction, proenvironmental behavior, and place attachment are measured across two qualitatively distinct populations in Australia and Canada. Techniques employed in this cross-country study bring an important contribution to tourism research. The primary focus is to establish measure equivalence before undertaking hypothesis testing using structural equation modeling on a sample of 339 repeat visitors at the Dandenong Ranges National Park, Australia, and 296 repeat visitors at the Bruce Peninsula National Park, Canada. Results from both samples indicate (a) there is measure equivalence between the Australian and Canadian samples allowing comparability of findings, (b) a positive and significant effect of visitor place satisfaction on proenvironmental behavioral intentions, (c) a significant and positive influence of proenvironmental behavioral intention on place attachment (place identity, place dependence, place social bonding, place affect), and (d) a significant and negative effect of visitor place satisfaction on place social bonding. The main finding relates to the promotion of proenvironmental behaviors among national park users that—in addition to individual benefits—provides environmental sustainability as well as practical benefits for park managers and society.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".