See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/372852559

Why do tourists use public transport in Korea? The roles of artificial

intelligence knowledge, environmental, social, and governance, and
sustainability

Article in Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research · August 2023

DOI: 10.1080/10941665.2023.2247099

CITATIONS READS

0 278

5 authors, including:

Myung Ja Kim Colin Michael Hall

Kyung Hee University University of Canterbury
105 PUBLICATIONS 5,303 CITATIONS 917 PUBLICATIONS 57,359 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Namho Chung Minseong Kim

Kyung Hee University Kyung Hee University
269 PUBLICATIONS 10,134 CITATIONS 11 PUBLICATIONS 18 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Myung Ja Kim on 11 September 2023.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rapt20

Why do tourists use public transport in Korea?

The roles of artificial intelligence knowledge,
environmental, social, and governance, and
sustainability

Myung Ja Kim, C. Michael Hall, Namho Chung, Minseong Kim & Kwonsang
Sohn

To cite this article: Myung Ja Kim, C. Michael Hall, Namho Chung, Minseong Kim & Kwonsang
Sohn (2023) Why do tourists use public transport in Korea? The roles of artificial intelligence
knowledge, environmental, social, and governance, and sustainability, Asia Pacific Journal of
Tourism Research, 28:5, 467-484, DOI: 10.1080/10941665.2023.2247099

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10941665.2023.2247099

View supplementary material

Published online: 21 Aug 2023.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 55

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rapt20
ASIA PACIFIC JOURNAL OF TOURISM RESEARCH
2023, VOL. 28, NO. 5, 467–484
https://doi.org/10.1080/10941665.2023.2247099

Why do tourists use public transport in Korea? The roles of artificial

intelligence knowledge, environmental, social, and governance, and
sustainability
Myung Ja Kim a, C. Michael Hall a,b,c,d,e,f
, Namho Chung a
, Minseong Kim g
and
Kwonsang Sohn h,i
a
College of Hotel & Tourism Management, Kyung Hee University, Seoul, Republic of Korea; bDepartment of Management,
Marketing, and Tourism, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand; cGeography Research Unit, University of Oulu,
Oulu, Finland; dSchool of Business and Economics, Linnaeus University, Kalmar, Sweden; eDepartment of Service Management
and Service Studies, Lund University, Helsingborg, Sweden; fCRiC, Taylor’s University, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia; gSmart Tourism
Education Platform, Kyung Hee University, Seoul, Republic of Korea; hThe College of Business Administration, Inha University,
Incheon, Republic of Korea; iSchool of Management, Kyung Hee University, Republic of Korea

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

The study of public transport and tourism, especially domestic tourism, is relatively Received 15 March 2023
under-researched, particularly in relation to emerging transport technologies, such Accepted 2 August 2023
as artificial intelligence (AI), and environmental, social, and governance (ESG). To
KEYWORDS
bridge this gap, an integrated research model is created and tested with ESG, air Public transport; artificial
quality, climate change, and AI, applying multi-analysis methods of partial least intelligence; environmental,
squares-structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM), multi-group analysis (MGA), and social, and governance;
fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA) in an Asian context. The three sustainability; domestic
methods provide a well-rounded perspective of the factors that influence tourists’ tourism; fuzzy-set qualitative
public transport use. Symmetric methods of SEM and MGA identifies key variables comparative analysis
and their relationships, while the fsQCA reveals complex combinations of
conditions. Results reveal that environmental and social ESG as well as climate
change mitigation and sustainable mobility are significant for use of public
transport by domestic tourists. High and low AI knowledge groups also have
distinctive public transport use characteristics.

Introduction
Public transport is an integral element of making
tourism and related mobility more sustainable in
Asia (United Nations, Economic and Social Commis-
sion for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP), 2021). Mega-
urbanization, growth in domestic and international
tourism, and increased concerns over public and
environmental health mean that destination, city,
and transport planners are encouraging greater
public transport use by tourists (Dulal et al., 2011;
Hall et al., 2017). However, despite the growth of sta-
keholder interest in encouraging tourist use of public
transport use, and especially domestic tourists, there
is little research on public transport use, nor on the
potentially significant role that new technologies or
various aspects of sustainability might play in public
transport, in an Asian context (Le-Klähn & Hall, 2015;
Ganzon, 2022; Lee et al., 2022b; ESCAP, 2021).
Artificial intelligence (AI) plays an increasingly critical
role in tourism especially with respect to sustainability
(Tong et al., 2022), particularly in terms of their appli-
cation to transport emission reduction and intelligent
transport systems (Miehe et al., 2022; Nikitas et al.,
2020). AI is an important part of the growing automation
of public transport services and the development of
smart public transport options (Hall et al., 2017), with
AI knowledge being an important factor in facilitating
AI applications (Alsobhi et al., 2022; Sun, 2021).

CONTACT Myung Ja Kim silver@khu.ac.kr The College of Hotel & Tourism Management, Kyung Hee University, 26 Kyungheedae-ro,
Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul 02447, Republic of Korea
Supplemental data for this article can be accessed https://doi.org/10.1080/10941665.2023.2247099
© 2023 Asia Pacific Tourism Association
468 M. J. KIM ET AL.
Environmental, social, and governance (ESG)
dimensions are also growing in their significance for
tourism businesses (Ionescu et al., 2019). ESG is an
expanded notion of Corporate Social Responsibility
(CSR) that focuses on the sustainability of a company’s
management by examining its environmentally
friendly, socially responsible, and transparent corpor-
ate governance (Lee et al., 2022a). ESG practices
provide greater resilience for tourism firms to external
shocks, and an associated sustainability strategy helps
mitigate the adverse effects of ESG risks on firm value
(Dogru et al., 2022). ESG evaluation on sustainable
transport suggests key sustainability factors which
identify environmental and social risks (S&P Global
Ratings, 2022). Currently, ESG institutionalization and
active ESG activation in the private sector are being
issued in South Korea (hereafter Korea), with the
declaration that the country should be carbon-
neutral by 2050 (Lee & Kim, 2022).
Tourism related sustainability can be expressed in
a number of different ways including environmentally
friendly tourist behavior, active transport, and sustain-
able mobility (Hall et al., 2017; Kim & Hall, 2022d,
2023). The most sustainable way of traveling over dis-
tance as a tourist is usually by using public transport,
resulting in improved air quality and climate change
mitigation (Switzerland Tourism, 2022). AI knowledge
also plays an increasingly important role in sustain-
able tourist behavior (Tong et al., 2022), service
failure and recovery (Xu & Liu, 2022), and automated
tourist transport (Miehe et al., 2022; Nikitas et al.,
2020). Perceived air quality and pursuing climate
change mitigation substantially influence tourist
behavior for sustainability (Kim & Hall, 2022c, 2023).
Active transport (e.g. walking, biking) is an important
form of sustainable transport (Kim & Hall, 2022a,
2022d), which has been encouraged by the adoption
of smart applications (Kim & Hall, 2022b, 2022e).
Therefore, an improved understanding of the role of
AI knowledge in tourism related public transport
appears significant with respect to its potential
influence on sustainability related behaviors.
Although AI knowledge, ESG, and sustainability are
important for tourism related public transport, rela-
tively little research has been conducted on using
public transport for domestic tourism, particularly in
light of the level of AI knowledge of consumers. To
fill this gap, the researchers create and verify an inte-
grated research model including three ESG factors, air
quality, climate change mitigation, and sustainable
mobility, together with high and low AI knowledge
groups to better understand domestic tourist behav-
ioral intention on public transport use. This study uti-
lized multi-analyses methods of partial least squares –
structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM), multi-group
analysis (MGA), and fuzzy-set qualitative comparative
analysis (fsQCA). To accomplish the study goals, the
researchers raise three research questions: Do the
three ESG dimensions influence behavioral intention
in using public transport for domestic tourism? Do
air quality, climate change, and sustainable mobility
influence behavioral intention on public transport
use? And do high and low AI knowledge groups
differ in using public transport for domestic
tourism? Accordingly, this study provides theoretical
and managerial contributions to improve travel con-
sumers use of public transport for domestic tourism.
Literature review and hypotheses
development
Public transport and tourism
In a tourism context, there has been a growing inter-
est in public transport due to its various economic,
environmental, and social benefits and overall contri-
bution to sustainable tourism (Le-Klähn & Hall, 2015)
as well as its role in destination attractiveness (Le-
Klähn et al., 2014). The use of public transport in
domestic tourism plays a significant role in sustain-
able transportation strategies (Gronau, 2017; Gross
& Grimm, 2018; Hall et al., 2017; Le-Klähn & Hall,
2015; Perea-Medina et al., 2019; Tourgo, 2022),
helping to meet emissions reduction targets (UN,
2022). Concerns over rising CO2 emissions and
tourism transport demand have led to an increased
use of green transport by holidaymakers, with
some destinations offering free public transport to
tourists (Gronau, 2017). A global survey on the
relationship between public transport and tourism
highlighted the critical role of public transport in
promoting sustainable travel behavior and improv-
ing the tourist experience (Hall et al., 2017). As inter-
est in sustainable tourist mobility at destinations
grows, there is a stronger focus on public transport
in the development of integrated multi-modal trans-
port systems that provide both destination accessi-
bility and travel within destinations (Gross &
Grimm, 2018; Perea-Medina et al., 2019). Despite
the importance of public transport for accessing
various attractions within destinations, there has
been relatively little research on public transport

for domestic tourism (Nutsugbodo et al., 2018),
especially in an Asian context.
There is a growing recognition of the importance
of using public transport to reduce tourism-related
emissions and improving air quality (Hamidi & Zhao,
2020; Sheng & Zhang, 2022; Tomej & Liburd, 2020).
For instance, research has highlighted the role of atti-
tude and self-perception in the use of sustainable
transport modes, indicating that good access to
public transport can increase bicycle and public trans-
port use (Hamidi & Zhao, 2020). Furthermore, public
transport accessibility can be a tool for promoting
social justice in sustainable tourism engagement, par-
ticularly in rural areas (Tomej & Liburd, 2020). The role
of government in encouraging tourists to substitute
private car use with public transportation is also sig-
nificant (Sheng & Zhang, 2022).
Public transport plays a crucial role in tourism
development (Gronau, 2017; Gross & Grimm, 2018;
Hall et al., 2017; Juschten & Hössinger, 2021; Tomej
& Liburd, 2020). Nevertheless, Gross and Grimm
(2018) estimate that the majority of CO2 emissions
from tourism are caused by tourist traffic, which
increases with growing transport demand. However,
while the significance of public transport in sustain-
able tourism is increasingly recognized (Hall et al.,
2017), much of the existing research is exploratory
and lacks theoretical linkages, especially with
respect to Asian domestic tourists. Therefore, this
study aims to investigate the behavior of domestic
tourists in Korea in using public transport, applying
ESG, air quality, climate change mitigation, sustain-
able mobility, and AI knowledge.
Environmental, social, and governance
Given that, as a sector, transport is a major contributor
to global emissions (15%), ESG factors are key
elements derived from Corporate Social Responsibility
(CSR) aspects of transportation (J.P. Morgan Asset
Management, 2022; Kuo et al., 2022; Ozcan, 2019).
Researchers have substantially highlighted ESG in a
tourism context, noting its benefits (Dogru et al.,
2022; Hassan & Meyer, 2022; Ionescu et al., 2019;
Tong et al., 2022). For example, sustainable business
practices in tourism firms provide greater resilience
to external shocks (Dogru et al., 2022), with higher
ESG risks reducing international tourist arrivals/
tourism revenue in the context of Visegràd countries
(Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia) (Hassan
& Meyer, 2022). Among the ESG factors, governance
ASIA PACIFIC JOURNAL OF TOURISM RESEARCH 469
appeared to have the greatest impact on the market
value of selected travel agencies, regardless of geo-
graphic location (Ionescu et al., 2019). Since ESG has
a significant role on transport and tourism, the
researchers propose the following three hypotheses:
H1: Perceived environmental ESG factor has a positive
effect on behavioral intention of using public transport
for domestic tourism.
H2: Perceived social factor has a positive effect on behav-
ioral intention of using public transport for domestic
tourism.
H3: Perceived governance ESG factor haa a positive
effect on behavioral intention of using public transport
for domestic tourism.
Air quality
Air quality is a measure of the extent that air pollution
and quality affect environmental and human health,
including physical activities (Kim & Hall, 2022c). Air
quality in cities is an ongoing concern for city plan-
ners, and reductions in car traffic and substitution
by public transport have been proposed as elements
of urban sustainability strategies in many cities (Dijk
et al., 2013; Tang et al., 2019). Increased use of
public transport has a significant impact on improving
urban air quality (Ma et al., 2021; Sun et al., 2019).
Importantly, perceived air quality has significant
impacts on pursuing climate change mitigation and
personal and public health among sustainable trans-
port users (Kim & Hall, 2022c). Moreover, tourists’ per-
ception of air quality highly significantly influences
their personal attachment to walking, which in turn
leads to travelers’ sustainable behavior on transport
(Kim & Hall, 2023), implying that air perceived
quality can have influence on behavioral intention
on sustainability. Therefore, this work presumes a
hypothesis:
H4: Perceived air quality has a positive effect on behav-
ioral intention of using public transport for domestic
tourism.
Climate change mitigation
Anthropogenic climate change refers to human
induced long-term changes in climate conditions
and weather patterns mainly because of burning
fossil fuels (IPCC, 2010). The impact of climate
change on tourism demand patterns is formed by
the response of travelers to its impacts on
470 M. J. KIM ET AL.

transportation systems, on destinations and attrac- Artificial intelligence

tions, and the broader impacts on society and econ-
AI can be applied as sustainable technology, for
omic development (Gössling et al., 2012). Tourist
example, energy sustainability and optimization of
awareness of climate change has been found to be
energy consumption for smart cities and destinations
a strong predictor of energy conservation and
(Chui et al., 2018). AI is recognized as having signifi-
carbon reduction measures (Qiao & Gao, 2017).
cant potential for environmental and sustainable
Wanting to mitigate climate change has been found
management, as well as providing smart technologi-
to influence personal norms as well as behavioral
cal solutions for maintaining stable and balanced
intention (Karpudewan, 2019). Among walkers and
development of economic systems (Lobova et al.,
bikers, the pursuit of climate change mitigation has
2022). AI (e.g. chatbots, robotics), Internet of Things
a great effect on personal and public health (Kim &
(IoT), sustainability, technological adoption, and ESG
Hall, 2022c). Furthermore, mitigation of the climate
have all been found to be key factors impacting intel-
crisis has a great influence on attachment to
ligent automation in tourism (Tong et al., 2022; Wang
walking, which in turn influences tourists’ behavior
et al., 2022). For public transport, AI is a technology
for using sustainable transport (Kim & Hall, 2023).
which delivers real-time information and solutions
Hence, the following hypothesis is proposed:
that facilitate operations for all involved, and signifi-
H5: Pursuing climate change mitigation has a positive cantly improve the comfort and the safety of passen-
effect on behavioral intention of using public transport gers with Mobility-as-a-Service (MaaS) (Luminator,
for domestic tourism.
2023).
Given the growing use of AI systems such as
ChatGPT and Bard, AI has been proposed as changing
Sustainable mobility the way that tourists use transport (Cordell, 2023; Kim,
Hall, and Kim, 2023b). In a public transport context,
Sustainable mobility is the ability to move people and
when high and low AI benefit groups are compared
goods from one place to another in a way that mini-
to each other, multi-analysis methods indicate that
mizes negative impacts on the environment, while
the EVAB model well explains travelers’ behavior
also promoting economic and social well-being (Hall
with public transport and AI benefits partially moder-
et al., 2017; Neste, 2023). Sustainable mobility can be
ate the research model, showing some unique differ-
achieved through a variety of measures, such as pro-
ences between users (Kim, Hall, Chung, et al., 2023a),
moting the use of public transport, encouraging
and highlighting the importance of conducting com-
walking and cycling, improving the energy efficiency
parative studies between high and low AI knowledge
of transport modes, and reducing private car use
groups. Knowledge-based AI assists in improving
(Hall et al., 2017; Kim et al., 2023c). The use of renew-
traffic flow or transportation logistics, predicting the
able energy sources is also an important part of sus-
best routes for the transportation of goods, optimiz-
tainable mobility (Neste, 2023; Tan & Lin, 2020). A
ing fuel consumption, and preventing accidents by
sustainable transportation system integrates public
MaaS (Guerrero-Ibañez et al., 2021; Rajabi et al.,
transport, walking, and cycling, to foster seamless, mul-
2023). In this study, high AI knowledge groups have
timodal mobility, and to increase the overall attractive-
sufficient knowledge, have adequate information,
ness of public transport (Friman et al., 2019).
and are well aware of AI for using public transport
Campaigns promoting sustainable and environmen-
for domestic tourism compared to low AI knowledge
tally friendly travel modes benefit from highlighting
group. Based on the literature review above, the
strong effects of social-normative influence and per-
researchers propose the following hypothesis:
ceived behavioral control on the use of public trans-
port (Nayum & Nordfjærn, 2021). Drawing upon the H7: High and low AI knowledge groups differ in their
literature review above, this study regards public trans- behavioral intention of using public transport for dom-
estic tourism.
port as sustainable mobility that contributes to sustain-
ability; thus, the following hypothesis is suggested: Accordingly, this research proposes a comprehensive
H6: Sustainable mobility has a positive effect on behav-
research framework, incorporating ESG (environ-
ioral intention of using public transport for domestic mental, social, and governance) and sustainability
tourism. (perceived air quality, pursuing climate change

mitigation, sustainable mobility) on behavioral inten-
tion of using public transport for domestic tourism in
comparing the high and low AI knowledge groups as
shown in Figure 1.
Methods
Measurements
Due to measurement imprecisions with use of single
questions, formerly confirmed multiple measures
were adapted for the survey questionnaire (Churchill,
1979). The survey tool consists of eight constructs and
35 items. ESG, perceived environmental, social, and
governance aspects on public transport for domestic
tourism were estimated by each four questions
based on Dogru et al. (2022) and Tong et al. (2022)
(e.g. “I think public transport for domestic tourism
helps minimize the environmental impact of its activi-
ties,” “I think public transport for domestic tourism
contributes to privacy and data security,” and “I
think public transport for domestic tourism contrib-
utes to ethical management and strives to establish
an ethical management organizational culture”).
Each four items for questions on air quality and
climate change mitigation came from Hall et al.
(2017) and Kim and Hall (2022c, 2023) (e.g. “I think
that air pollution is reduced by using public transport
for domestic tourism” and “I favor public transport for
domestic tourism as a means for mitigating climate
change rather than driving”). Seven items for sustain-
able mobility came from Hall et al. (2017) and Kim and
Hall (2022c, 2023) (e.g. “I believe that public transport
for domestic tourism powered by renewable energy is
the most sustainable”). Four questions relevant to
behavioral intention was derived from Kim and Hall
(2022c, 2023) (e.g. “I’m planning to use public trans-
port for domestic tourism”). Four items associated
with knowledge of AI were assessed drawing upon
Xu and Liu (2022) (e.g. “I think that I am well aware
of AI for using public transport for domestic tourism”).
Given high reliability and discriminant validity, all
questions applied a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging
from (1) strongly disagree to (7) strongly agree (Cic-
chetti et al., 1985; Preston & Colman, 2000). It also con-
tains general information on the main reasons for
using public transportation, the number of domestic
trips per year, the number of domestic public trans-
portation usage per year, the types of public transpor-
tation used recently, the main reasons for using public
transportation for tourism, and details of the UN 17
SDGs (Kim et al., 2022). The researchers also
ASIA PACIFIC JOURNAL OF TOURISM RESEARCH 471
incorporated respondents’ sociodemographic ques-
tions (i.e. monthly household income, occupation,
region of residence, gender, education level, age,
and marital status) (see Appendix A).
Content validity
The measurements were written primarily in English
and translated into Korean by experts fluent in both
languages. The Korean form is then back translated
into English, correcting for discrepancies in grammar
and intended meaning (Brislin, 1970). In the process,
a bilingual version of the survey was created.
Three academic researchers performed a prelimi-
nary assessment of the questionnaire’s content validity.
At this stage, one item of perceived environment
aspects of ESG and one item of perception of air
quality was deleted to capture the most pertinent
semantics of the syntax. After evaluating the survey
by three digital survey experts, the introduction,
general questions, and socio-demographic factors
were modified to tailor the survey to the needs of
the digital platform. As a pilot test, the researchers pro-
vided the survey to five graduate students who had
used public transport for domestic tourism. As a
result, the definitions of using public transport for
domestic tourism, domestic tourism, and screening
questions have changed to be more explicit. A pre-
test was then conducted with 60 Koreans who had
used public transport for domestic tourism. As a
result, four questions were added to improve response
quality, “Do you own a car?,” “Do you have a driver’s
license?,” and total response time (Supplementary A).
Data collection
Public transportation in Korea is a safe, efficient, and
affordable way to get around the country (Lee, 2013).
Several types of public transport, including subways,
buses, trains, and ferries, are available. However, infra-
structure differences exist among rural, urban, and
offshore areas. Major cities like Seoul, boast advanced
and comprehensive public transportation systems,
with services like the T-Money card facilitating easy
transfers between different transport modes. Rural
areas in Korea typically have less public transportation
available, mostly serviced by infrequent buses, necessi-
tating reliance on private cars or taxis for mobility.
Ferries are necessary for reaching offshore islands,
and on the islands themselves, transportation options
can be limited (Lee, 2013).
472 M. J. KIM ET AL.
Figure 1. Proposed research model.
Because of their cost effectiveness, web-based
panel surveys are used for consumer research in
Korea. The largest digital survey firm in Asia
(Embrain) collected data from September 1–10,
2022, based on the total population in Korea, applying
socio-demographic quota sampling to reflect the
Korean population’s age, residential area, and
gender (Ministry of the Interior and Safety, 2022).
Koreans, 18 years and older, and who participated in
domestic tourism via public transport were asked to
join in the survey. Invitations were emailed to 4,541
subjects with a random sampling of 1.6 million
panel members of the survey firm. Only 570 respon-
dents passed the screen questions. Subjects who
spent less than 3.5 min to complete the survey and
did not have domestic tourism related travel in the
past year were eliminated. Of them, 498 cases were
then used for analysis, employing partial least
squares (PLS)-structural equation modelling (SEM)
(Ringle et al., 2022) and fsQCA (Azimi Hashemi &
Hanser, 2018; Ragin, 2017).
Data analysis
This study used both symmetric and asymmetric
approaches to predict the behavioral intention of
public transport from the perspective of Korean resi-
dents. Symmetrical approaches (e.g. SEM, regression)
aim to investigate the sufficiency of the independent
variable (x) in predicting the dependent variable (y)
(Olya, 2023). In a symmetric approach, high scores in
x are more likely to be related to high scores in y,
and low scores in x are more likely to be related to
low scores in y. In asymmetric approaches (e.g.
fsQCA), a high-scoring x (solution) is not necessarily
associated with a high-scoring y (outcome variable)
(Kim, Hall, Chung, et al., 2023a, 2023c).
The researchers evaluated the study framework
using a symmetrical approach, primarily employing
PLS-SEM with MGA (Hair et al., 2017). PLS-SEM can
be used for nonnormal data, small samples, second-
order factors with first-order factors, and/or MGA
(Kim et al., 2022). Therefore, in this study, SmartPLS
4 was used for measurement and structural model
verification (Ringle et al., 2022).
To verify the comparative effect of different struc-
tures, fsQCA was applied in an asymmetric fashion
(Olya, 2023; Ragin, 2017). To obtain richer results
with sufficient constructs and combinations of
causal relationships, Necessary Condition Analysis
(NCA) examines and compares the effects of three
perceived ESG aspects, perceived air quality, pursuing
climate change mitigation, and sustainable mobility
on behavioral intention for public transport based
tourism (Rasoolimanesh et al., 2021). The researchers
used fsQCA 3.0 software to find sufficient causal
 ASIA PACIFIC JOURNAL OF TOURISM RESEARCH 473

combinations of constructs and recipes as well as (Korsgaard & Roberson, 1995), common method bias
NCAs from previous entries (Pappas et al., 2019). is not problem in this study. See more details in
Three-level configuration modeling (Olya, 2023) Table 1.
was performed using the fsQCA software (Ragin,
2017). Data were corrected from sharp values to
fuzzy format. Convert study variable values measured Results
on a 7-point scale were calibrated to fuzzy set mem- Sample profile
bership scores ranging from 1.00 (full members) to 0
(full non-members). Interval data were calibrated to The general information and demographics for the
fuzzy set member scores using three qualitative entire group (498 cases) are provided in Table 2.
anchors. Seven of one set were assigned canonical Half of the respondents in the sample were male
members with a value of 1, four showed an intersec- (53.2%), and almost a quarter of the respondents
tion with a value of 0.5, and one was used as an were in the 50–59 age bracket (22.4%). The majority
overall non-member in the set with values of 0 for of the respondents attended a university or had a uni-
all variables (Ragin, 2017). Data calibration was per- versity degree or higher (65.4%) and were married
formed using fsQCA 3.0 software. According to two (57.2%). Slightly more than a third of the participants
methods of single-factor test (Podsakoff et al., 2003) were office, administrative, and/or clerical workers
and comparing simple and complex models (33.7%) and earned over KRW (Korean Won) 4.00
million in monthly household income (56.9%) (US$1
is equivalent to KRW1,355). Half of the participants
Table 1. Common method bias tests. lived in non-metropolitan areas (50.5%). More than a
Test method Test Result half of respondents used public transport for dom-
Harmon single-factor Eight factors Since more than estic tourism1-5 times per year (66.6) and used
test appeared one factor buses for tourism (68.5%). Among the 17 UN SDGs
(the total 73.5% appears, and the the respondents were most concerned with climate
variance first factor has less
explained) than 50% change (24.6%).
First factor: 31.5% variance, common The demographics and general information for the
Second factor: method bias is not two groups of high and low AI knowledge (see Sup-
12.2%$Third an issue.
factor: 7.2% plementary B). The outcomes indicate that the two
Fourth factor: groups have quite different characteristics. For
6.3% example, members of the high AI knowledge group
Fifth factor: 5.3%
Sixth factor: 4.1% are more likely to be males, highly educated, high
Seventh factor: income earners, have own car, using public transport
3.9% for leisure, spent the most time in Jeju, and are con-
Eighth factor:
3.1% cerned about public health and well-being. Respon-
Comparing single Simple model: Since the complex dents from the low AI knowledge group are more
factor model (simple Average variance model is superior likely to be females, less educated, traveling for visit-
model; all extracted (AVE): to the simple
independent factors 0.376 (the larger model, common ing friends and relatives, part-time workers, be con-
considered one the better) method bias is not cerned about climate change, and use public
variable) and R square: 41.1% an issue in this transport for its drive-free benefits.
hypotheses model (the larger the study.
(complex) better)
Model fit: 0.114
(the smaller the Measurement model testing
better)
Research (complex) With the measurements, 30 indicators had factor load-
model ings over 0.7 based on confirmatory factor analysis.
AVE: 0.736
R square: 44.1% Three items from sustainable mobility were omitted
Model fit: 0.054 because their factor loadings were lower than 0.7
(SRMR: standard (Hair et al., 2020) (Table 3). As shown in Table 4, the
root mean
residual) composite reliability, Rho_A, and Cronbach’s α of vari-
Note: All tests show that common method bias is not problem in this ables are over 0.7, confirming the internal validity of
study. scales. The average variance extracted (AVE) of the
474 M. J. KIM ET AL.

Table 2. Demographic characteristic and general information of the entire group.

498 100
Characteristics 498 (n) 100 (%) Characteristics (n) (%)
Gender Latest domestic trip by public
transport
Male 265 53.2 1–3 months ago 341 68.5
Female 233 46.8 4–7 months ago 113 22.6
Other 0 0.0 8 months and more ago 44 8.9
Age Frequency of domestic tourism per
year
Between 18 and 29 years old 109 21.9 Less than 5 times 331 66.6
Between 30 and 39 years old 100 20.1 5 −10 times 129 25.8
Between 40 and 49 years old 105 21.1 11 times and more 38 7.6
Between 50 and 59 years old 112 22.4 Frequency of domestic tourism by
public transport per year
60 years old and over 72 14.5 Less than 5 times 428 86.0
Educational level 5 −10 times 61 12.2
Less than or high school diploma 88 17.7 11 times and more 9 1.8
2-year college 84 16.9 Types of public transport for tourism
recently used*
University 268 53.8 Buses 341 68.5
Graduate school or higher 58 11.6 Trains/subways 372 74.7
Marital status Ferry 58 11.6
Single 195 39.2 Other (bike, charter bus, etc.) 27 5.4
Married 285 57.2 Types of other transport recently used*
Other 18 3.6 Private car 276 55.4
Monthly household income Bicycle (pushbike) 38 7.6
Less than KRW 2.000-3.999 million 215 43.1 E-bike 32 6.4
From KRW 4.000–7.999 million 214 43.0 Taxi 207 41.6
KRW 8,000 million or more 69 13.9 Walk 281 56.4
Occupation Aircraft 95 19.1
Professional (e.g. attorney, engineer) 51 10.2 Other (rental car, motorcycle, friend’s car, 22 4.4
etc.)
Business owner/self-employed 31 6.2 Greatest concern about the UN 17
SDGs
Service worker 45 9.0 1. Poverty reduction 25 5.0
Office/administrative/clerical worker 167 33.7 2. Reducing hunger/sustainable 5 1.0
agriculture & food
Civil servant (government) 29 5.8 3. Public health and well-being 98 19.8
Home maker 63 12.7 4. Equitable quality education & lifelong 11 2.2
learning
Student 19 3.8 5. Gender equality/empowerment for 14 2.8
women/girls
Retiree 34 6.8 6. Clean water and public sanitation 22 4.4
Unemployed 28 5.6 7. Sustainable energy 39 7.8
Other 31 6.2 8. Green business practices/employment 31 6.2
Residential area 9. Sustainable infrastructure/sound 31 6.2
technologies
Metropolitan area 246 49.5 10. Reduce socio-economic inequalities 8 1.6
Non-metropolitan area 252 50.5 11. Sustainable housing/transport/green 44 8.8
and public space
Duration of answering the survey 12. Waste reduction and recycling 22 4.4
More than 4.0 up to 311.1 min 448 100.0 13. Climate change 122 24.6
Do you own a car? 14. Sustainable oceans and marine 3 0.6
resource conservation
Yes 289 58.0 15. Terrestrial biodiversity/reduce illegal 3 0.6
wildlife trade
No 209 42.0 16. Peaceful and inclusive societies/reduce 15 3.0
violence
Providing honest answers 17. Technology/financial transfer to 5 1.0
developing countries
Yes 498 100.0 Primary reason for using public
transport for tourism
No 0 0.0 Reducing emissions 2 0.4
59 11.8

(Continued )
 ASIA PACIFIC JOURNAL OF TOURISM RESEARCH 475

Table 2. Continued.
498 100
Characteristics 498 (n) 100 (%) Characteristics (n) (%)
Primary motivation of using Avoiding
public transport congestion
Leisure 340 68.3 Saving travel expenses 90 18.1
Visiting friends and relatives 121 24.3 Improving health 3 0.6
business 22 4.4 Drive-free benefits 203 40.8
other 15 3.0 Convenience 109 21.9
Used public transport for non- Car unavailability 17 3.4
travel
Buses 169 33.9 Other (drinking, no license, no own car, 15 3.0
can’t drive)
Trains/subways 210 42.2 Do you have a driver’s license?
Ferry 8 1.6 Yes 452 90.8
Other Public transport 16 3.2 No 46 9.2
Not applicable 95 19.1 Engaged in domestic tourism in the
last 12 months
Spent the most time during public Yes 498 100.0
transport travel
Seoul 77 15.5 No 0 0.0
Busan 73 14.7
Jeju 55 11.0
Note: *Multi-choice item.

seven constructs is over 0.5, and the factor loadings of
all the items are over 0.7, approving the convergent
validity. Discriminant validity is recognized with Het-
erotrait-Monotrait Ratio (HTMT) (Hair et al., 2017).
That is, the maximum value between social ESG and
governance ESG is 0.719, which is smaller than the
standard value of 0.9. Accordingly, the discriminant
validity is recognized. As Q2 values, an acceptable
degree of predictive relevance is attained over zero
which were recognized for the endogenous variables,
revealing 0.326 based on Geisser (1974) and Stone
(1974). In addition, the multicollinearity of variables
is verified, employing the variance expansion coeffi-
cient (VIF). The outcomes displayed that multicolli-
nearity is not a problem since the outer VIF range
was from 1.394–4.569 (Hair et al., 2019).
Results of structural model testing
In this study, applying bootstraps of 5,000 resam-
plings, PLS-SEM is utilized to assess the seven hypoth-
eses (Hair et al., 2017). The R2s (variance explained)
show behavioral intention of using public transport
for domestic tourism (44.8%) (Hair et al., 2020) (see
Figure 2). With regard to hypotheses, perceived
environmental aspect of ESG positively influences
behavioral intention (H1: γ = 0.180, t-value = 3,401, p
< 0.001); perceived social aspect of ESG positively
influences behavioral intention (H1: γ = 0.189, t-
value = 3,608, p < 0.001); pursuing climate change
mitigation positively influences behavioral intention
(H1: γ = 0.418, t-value = 9,108, p < 0.001); and sustain-
able mobility positively influences behavioral inten-
tion (H1: γ = 0.098, t-value = 2,299, p < 0.001).
However, perceived governance aspect of ESG has
an insignificant effect on behavioral intention (H1: γ
= −0.096, t-value = 1,381, p < 0.001) and perceived
air quality has an insignificant effect on behavioral
intention (H1: γ = 0.180, t-value = 3,401, p < 0.001).
Therefore, hypotheses 1, 2, 5, and 6 are supported,
but hypothesis 3 and 4 are not supported. A plausible
reason is that domestic tourists who are using public
transport may not be aware of the governance system
and air pollution. Cohen’s f2 is a standardized assess-
ment of effect size (Cohen, 1988). The f2 values are
shown as being from 0.002–0.209. Therefore, since
the effect ranges (f2) of 0.02, 0.15, and 0.35 denote
from small to big impacts, the model outcomes
show an appropriate range of influences.
Comparing high and low AI knowledge groups
Based on the MGA (Ringle et al., 2022), we compare the
six relationships for high and low AI knowledge groups.
In comparing the two groups, the low group has the
greater prediction power in this study model (49.7%)
than that of their counterpart (44.0%) (see Figure 3).
Two relationships of the six are significantly
different. The relationship between perceived air
quality and behavioral intention over the high AI
476 M. J. KIM ET AL.

Table 3. Confirmatory factor analysis and normality.

Kurto- Skew-
Constructs FL* t-value sis ness VIF**
Perceived environmental aspects of ESG
1. I think public transport for domestic tourism helps minimize the environmental impact of 0.892 74.797 0.39 −0.645 2.199
its activities.
2. I think public transport for domestic tourism helps use energy efficiently and save energy. 0.893 73.281 0.305 −0.657 2.349
3. I think public transport for domestic tourism helps reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 0.891 58.858 0.575 −0.756 2.444
Perceived social aspects of ESG
1. I think public transport for domestic tourism contributes to privacy and data security. 0.719 21.809 −0.218 −0.163 1.554
2. I think public transport for domestic tourism contributes to activations in the local 0.837 51.519 0.317 −0.522 1.762
community.
3. I think that the public transport for domestic tourism contributes to activations in social 0.830 38.172 0.378 −0.598 1.937
activities.
4. I think public transport for domestic tourism contributes to improvements of the 0.849 44.95 0.152 −0.437 2.027
environment and conditions of workers.
Perceived governance aspects of ESG
1. I think public transport for domestic tourism contributes to ethical management and 0.855 49.735 0.088 −0.292 2.138
strives to establish an ethical management organizational culture.
2. I believe public transport for domestic tourism contributes to maintain transparency and 0.897 24.446 0.125 −0.254 1.983
advance the governance structure for factors influencing decision-making related to
corporate management.
3. I think public transport for domestic tourism contributes to decisions taking into account 0.822 30.994 −0.045 −0.401 1.808
the environment, society, and governance.
4. I think public transport for domestic tourism contributes to compiling tax and tax system. 0.841 43.548 0.149 −0.245 1.883
Perception of air quality
1. I think that air pollution is reduced by using public transport for domestic tourism. 0.928 118.548 0.640 −0.736 3.147
2. I think that air quality is increased by using public transport for domestic tourism. 0.902 64.903 0.665 −0.685 2.600
3. I think that atmospheric fine dust is reduced by using public transport for domestic 0.907 57.273 0.740 −0.706 2.770
tourism.
Pursuing climate change mitigation
1. I favor public transport for domestic tourism as a means for mitigating climate change 0.923 93.999 −0.416 −0.245 3.924
rather than driving.
2. I prefer public transport for domestic tourism to lessen climate change rather than 0.925 126.624 −0.541 −0.336 4.101
driving.
3. I prefer public transport for domestic tourism to alleviate climate change rather than 0.910 73.699 −0.399 −0.275 3.337
driving.
4. I prefer public transport for domestic tourism to reduce climate change rather than 0.924 102.607 −0.425 −0.341 3.833
driving.
Sustainable mobility
1. I believe that public transport for domestic tourism powered by renewable energy is the 0.803 30.713 0.339 −0.600 1.564
most sustainable
2. I believe that public transport for domestic tourism powered by natural gas is the most 0.718 17.512 0.296 −0.478 1.394
sustainable
3. I believe that electric-powered public transport for domestic tourism is the most 0.769 26.737 0.262 −0.510 1.467
sustainable
4. I believe that hydrogen-powered public transport for domestic tourism is the most 0.786 26.384 −0.016 −0.327 1.596
sustainable
Behavioral intentional intention on public transport for domestic tourism
1. I’m planning to use public transport for domestic tourism. 0.875 72.797 0.268 −0.489 2.799
2. I will make an effort to use public transport for domestic tourism. 0.852 59.037 −0.052 −0.306 1.988
3. I am willing to use public transport for domestic tourism. 0.854 56.154 0.346 −0.456 2.364
4. I do intend to use public transport for domestic tourism. 0.895 71.371 −0.166 −0.343 2.934
Knowledge of AI
1. I think that I am well aware of AI for using public transport for domestic tourism. 0.926 93.104 −0.794 0.070 4.569
2. I think that I have enough knowledge of AI for using public transport for domestic tourism 0.934 132.891 −0.537 0.194 4.151
3. I think that I know the detailed functions of AI for using public transport for domestic 0.934 128.36 −0.606 0.198 4.497
tourism.
4. I think that I have adequate information of AI’ benefits for using public transport for 0.919 94.727 −0.506 0.089 3.669
domestic tourism.
Note: *Factor loading; **Variance inflation factor of multicollinearity.

knowledge groups are positively and significantly intention over the low AI knowledge group signifi-
different from each other. The relationship between cantly differ from each other. Thus, Hypothesis 7 is
pursuing climate change mitigation and behavioral partially supported (see Table 5).
 ASIA PACIFIC JOURNAL OF TOURISM RESEARCH 477

Table 4. Reliability and discriminant validity.

Construct Heterotrait-Monotrait Ratio (< 0.9)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. Environmental-ESG
2. Social-ESG 0.416
3. Governance-ESG 0.419 0.719
4. Perception of Air quality 0.744 0.442 0.420
5. Pursuing climate change mitigation 0.445 0.577 0.521 0.400
6. Sustainable mobility 0.517 0.403 0.415 0.407 0.345
7. Behavioral intentional intention 0.517 0.532 0.389 0.435 0.642 0.415
Mean 5.518 4.560 4.440 5.333 4.554 5.008 5.182
Standard deviation 1.069 1.277 1.264 1.203 1.375 1.194 1.127
Cronbach’s alpha ≥ 0.7 0.872 0.827 0.852 0.899 0.940 0.771 0.893
Rho_A (reliability coefficient) ≥ 0.7 0.875 0.849 0.861 0.902 0.941 0.776 0.901
Composite reliability ≥ 0.7 0.921 0.884 0.899 0.937 0.957 0.853 0.925
AVE ≥ 0.5 0.796 0.657 0.691 0.833 0.847 0.592 0.756
Effect size (Q2) > 0 - - - - - - 0.326
Note: –: Exogenous variables give effects to endogenous variables so only endogenous variables have an effect size in causal modeling.

Results of fsQCA domestic tourists with high perceived support of

the environmental aspect of ESG are more likely
Comparing the high and low groups of AI knowledge
to use public transport. The findings extend exist-
reveals interesting similarities and differences.
ing literature on ESG, tourism, and transportation
According to the analysis of necessary condition
(Ionescu et al., 2019). Social ESG factor significantly
(ANC), environmental-ESG and perception of air
influences travel consumer behavioral intention
quality are necessary for both high and low groups
relevant to using public transport, implying that
(Table 6).
domestic tourists with high perceived support of
Grounded on fsQCA, for the high and low knowl-
social aspects of ESG are also more likely to use
edge of AI groups, solutions are suggested as environ-
public transport. The findings also extend existing
mental-ESG, along with perception of air
literature on ESG, tourism, and transportation
quality*sustainable mobility to generate high-degree
(Dogru et al., 2022; Tong et al., 2022). However,
behavioral intent on using public transport for dom-
governance, i.e. the way public transport systems
estic tourism (the first configuration for both
are governed, has an insignificant influence on
groups) (Table 7). From the high knowledge group,
behavioral intention. A plausible reason is that, in
solutions are suggested as environmental ESG*social
general, Korean governments and public transport
ESG*governance ESG, along with pursuing climate
companies tend not to be open with respect to
change mitigation; social ESG, along with perception
their governance systems and structures so travel
of air quality*climate change mitigation; and percep-
consumers do not know these aspects or poten-
tion of air quality to induce high degree of public
tially perceive them as important, and sub-
transport use (behavioral intention). In the low knowl-
sequently the governance ESG does not influence
edge group, solutions are suggested as environ-
domestic travelers’ behavior.
mental ESG*social ESG, along with pursuing climate
Pursuing climate change mitigation has positive
change mitigation*sustainable mobility; environ-
impacts on travelers’ behavioral intention, reinforcing
mental ESG; and sustainable mobility to derive a
that domestic tourists who are highly concerned
high level of public transport use for tourism (behav-
about climate change are more likely to use public
ioral intention).
transport. The results expand prior research on envir-
onmentally friendly behavior, climate change mitiga-
Conclusions tion, and sustainable transport in a tourism context
(Hall et al., 2017; Kim & Hall, 2019). Sustainable mobi-
Discussion lity has positive impacts on travelers’ behavioral inten-
Environmental ESG factors significantly influences tions, reinforcing the notion that domestic tourists
domestic tourism consumer behavioral intention who are highly concerned about sustainability are
relevant to using public transport, implying that more likely to be use public transport. The results
478 M. J. KIM ET AL.

Figure 2. Results of path analysis.

Figure 3. Comparing high and low AI knowledge groups.

 ASIA PACIFIC JOURNAL OF TOURISM RESEARCH 479

Table 5. Differences of the path coefficients between high and low AI Theoretical and practical contributions
knowledge groups.
Path p-value Hypothesis This work provides several theoretical contributions.
H7 Path difference (A-B) test First, as far as the researchers know, this research is
H7- Environmental-ESG ✓ −0.028 0.786 Not the first on ESG aspects of public transport for dom-
Behavioral intention supported
1 estic tourism in an Asian context. Applying three pro-
H7- Social-ESG ✓ −0.087 0.398 Not
2 Behavioral intention supported minent factors of air quality, climate change
H7- Governance-ESG ✓ 0.031 0.732 Not mitigation, and sustainable mobility for public trans-
Behavioral intention supported
3 port is a significant advance with respect to transport
H7- Perception of Air 0.226 0.049 Supported
4 quality ✓ Behavioral dimensions of domestic tourism trip behavior. With
intention regard to AI knowledge, the AI dimension is signifi-
H7- Pursuing climate −0.218 0.018 Supported
cant because of the growing role of AI in public trans-
5 change mitigation ✓
Behavioral intention port systems as well as in different tourism sectors,
H7- Sustainable mobility ✓ 0.075 0.398 Not especially with respect to the growth in smart and
Behavioral intention supported
6 autonomous public transport. The MGA has been
applied to better understand the differences and simi-
expand prior research on sustainable transport with larities over high and low AI knowledge groups,
respect to active transport of walking and biking offering various perspectives on Al roles. The
(Kim & Hall, 2022c, 2023). However, perceived air researchers also applied fsQCA to better understand
quality has an insignificant influence on behavioral the similarity and difference between high and low
intention; this is contrary to the hypothesis and knowledge of AI, providing new insights on the sig-
researchers’ expectation. A plausible reason for this nificance of AI knowledge as a factor in tourist
is that although air pollution and atmospheric fine behavior.
dust are a big problem in Korea, Koreans may not The results offer some practical implications to
be fully aware of the potential reduction in particu- public transport stakeholders. The significant effect
lates that replacement of private car use by public of environmental ESG aspect on behavioral inten-
transport may bring. tion suggests that public transport organizations
With regard to the results from MGA, the high AI should highlight environmental ESG aspects if they
knowledge group demonstrates a stronger relation- want domestic tourism consumers to use public
ship between perceived air quality and behavioral transport more. The significant impact of perceived
intention than their counter part. In contrast, the social ESG suggests that public transport agencies
low AI knowledge group has a higher explanatory should highlight the social ESG aspect when they
power than their counterpart. The effect of pursuing want domestic tourism consumers to use public
climate change mitigation on behavioral intention is transport frequently. In addition, the highly signifi-
also greater in the low group than in the high cant effect of pursuing climate change mitigation
group, implying that low AI knowledge group is a on behavioral intention suggests that public trans-
better fit on the research model. port stakeholders should stress how air pollution is
Importantly, based on fsQCA, high and low AI harmful for the environment and human health if
knowledge groups have similarities and differences they want domestic tourism consumers to use
in relation to tourist public transport. Results public transport more. Importantly, the significant
suggest that environmental ESG and perception of impact of sustainable mobility on behavioral inten-
air quality are necessary to encourage tourist use tion recommends that state and local agencies
of public transport. To encourage adoptive behav- could highlight promotion on renewable energy
ior, both high and low groups need environmental powered, public transport for tourism. Accordingly,
ESG as well as perception of air quality and the findings recommend that destination manage-
climate change mitigation. The high group needs ment organizations can create strategies to
to perceive air quality and sustainable mobility or promote public transport use with environmental/
only air quality. More interestingly, the low group social ESG and climate change mitigation and sus-
needs only environmental ESG or sustainable mobi- tainable mobility.
lity to derive a high level of tourist use of public According to the MGA, the low AI knowledge
transport. group are more concerned about climate change so
480 M. J. KIM ET AL.

Table 6. The ANC to predict behavioral intentions on public transport for domestic tourism.
Outcome: Group I
Antecedent condition (High AI knowledge group) Results
Coverage Consistency
Environmental-ESG 0.912 0.944 Necessary
Social-ESG 0.958 0.865 Unnecessary
Governance-ESG 0.953 0.819 Unnecessary
Perception of air quality 0.918 0.930 Necessary
Pursuing climate change mitigation 0.954 0.836 Unnecessary
Sustainable mobility 0.932 0.896 Unnecessary
Outcome: Group II
Antecedent condition (Low AI knowledge group)
Environmental-ESG 0.861 0.954 Necessary
Social-ESG 0.953 0.761 Unnecessary
Governance-ESG 0.948 0.734 Unnecessary
Perception of air quality 0.873 0.908 Necessary
Pursuing climate change mitigation 0.975 0.780 Unnecessary
Sustainable mobility 0.899 0.870 Unnecessary

public transport stakeholders might design marketing Limitations and future research directions
strategies focused on how to mitigate climate crisis by
Although this work provides theoretical and practical
using public transport when they target for travel con-
contributions, there are some limitations that might
sumers with the low AI knowledge. This could be
provide opportunities for future research. First, the
done by using digital events applying sustainable
researchers applied multi-analyses methods to under-
technologies, such as virtual reality, augmented
stand travel consumer behavior relevant to public
reality, and metaverse. Based on fsQCA findings,
transport based on the data collected from online
public transport stakeholders could focus on percep-
survey. Future research should use other data
tion of air quality if they want to target travel consu-
sources and methods, including multi-sourced data,
mers with high AI knowledge. On the other hand,
e.g. website and social media data, observational
agencies seeking to encourage greater public trans-
studies, as well as expert and panel interviews to
port use should emphasize sustainable mobility
better understand public transport users’ behavior.
when they desire to encourage consumers with low
Second, since this study focused on a specific
AI knowledge to use public transport frequently. Con-
country and culture so future research in other
sequently, this study highlights that transport and
national and cultural contexts would be valuable to
tourism stakeholders should develop marketing
shed light on the differences and similarities in
plans based on different segments depending on
terms of attitudes towards and used of public trans-
high and low AI knowledge in order to boost use of
port by tourists in relation to sustainability and tech-
public transport for domestic tourism.
nology issues. Furthermore, longitudinal research is

Table 7. Sufficient causal configurations for three types of SDGs on behavioral intentions.
Raw coverage Unique coverage Consistency
Group I: High AI knowledge group Consistency
(Coverage: 0.893; Consistency: 0.951)
EESG*POAQ*SUMO 0.844 0.072 0.955
EESG*SESG*GESG*PCCM*SUMO 0.701 0.010 0.990
SESG*∼GESG*POAQ*∼PCCM*SUMO 0.316 0.002 1.000
∼EESG*∼SESG*∼GESG*POAQ*∼PCCM*∼SUMO 0.214 0.002 0.995
Group II: Low AI knowledge group
(Coverage: 0.890; Consistency: 0.904)
EESG*POAQ*SUMO 0.814 0.061 0.934
EESG*SESG*PCCM*SUMO 0.631 0.001 0.995
EESG*∼SESG*∼GESG*∼PCCM 0.391 0.005 0.950
∼GESG*∼POAQ*∼PCCM*SUMO 0.282 0.004 0.954
Note: ∼: Negation; ESG: Environmental, social, and governance; EESG: Environmental-ESG; SESG: social-ESG;
GESG: Governance-ESG; POAQ: Perception of air quality; PCCM: Pursuing climate change mitigation; SUST: Sustainable mobility.

needed to better understand the long-term adoption
of sustainability related behaviors with respect to
public transport use by domestic tourists and the rela-
tive success of different interventions.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank Mr. Kijoon Jin for his dedicated help in mana-
ging this grant project. This work was supported by a grant from
Kyung Hee University in 2022 (KHU-20220778).
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Funding
This work was supported by Kyung Hee University: [Grant
Number KHU-20220778].
Declaration of conflicting interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest
with respect to the research, authorship, and/or pub-
lication of this article.
ORCID
Myung Ja Kim http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8077-8503
C. Michael Hall http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7734-4587
Namho Chung http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2118-0413
Minseong Kim http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3341-7462
Kwonsang Sohn http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0692-0425
References
Alsobhi, M., Sachdev, H. S., Chevidikunnan, M. F., Basuodan, R.,
Dhanesh Kumar, K. U., & Khan, F. (2022). Facilitators and bar-
riers of artificial intelligence applications in rehabilitation: A
mixed-method approach. International Journal of
Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(23), 15919.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192315919
Azimi Hashemi, M., & Hanser, E. (2018). Cultural antecedents of
inbound tourism in five Asian and Middle East countries: A
fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis. International
Journal of Tourism Research, 20(6), 698–712. https://doi.org/
10.1002/jtr.2217
Brislin, R. W. (1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research.
Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1(3), 185–216. https://
doi.org/10.1177/135910457000100301
Chui, K. T., Lytras, M. D., & Visvizi, A. (2018). Energy sustainability
in smart cities: Artificial intelligence, smart monitoring, and
optimization of energy consumption. Energies, 11(11), 1–20.
Churchill, G. A. (1979). A paradigm for developing better
measures of marketing constructs. Journal of Marketing
Research, 16(1), 64–73.
ASIA PACIFIC JOURNAL OF TOURISM RESEARCH 481
Cicchetti, D. V., Shoinralter, D., & Tyrer, P. J. (1985). The effect of
number of rating scale categories on levels of interrater
reliability: A Monte Carlo investigation. Applied
Psychological Measurement, 9(1), 31–36. https://doi.org/10.
1177/014662168500900103
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral
sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Cordell, W. (2023). How ChatGPT and Generative AI could
change the way we travel - The New York Times. Retrieved
May 22, 2023, from https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/16/
travel/chatgpt-artificial-intelligence-travel-vacation.html.
Dijk, M., de Haes, J., & Montalvo, C. (2013). Park-and-Ride motivations
and air quality norms in Europe. Journal of Transport Geography,
30, 149–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2013.04.008
Dogru, T., Akyildirim, E., Cepni, O., Ozdemir, O., Sharma, A., &
Yilmaz, M. H. (2022). The effect of environmental, social and
governance risks. Annals of Tourism Research, 95, 103432.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2022.103432
Dulal, H. B., Brodnig, G., & Onoriose, C. G. (2011). Climate change
mitigation in the transport sector through urban planning: A
review. Habitat International, 35(3), 494–500. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.habitatint.2011.02.001
Friman, M., Gärling, T., & Ettema, D. (2019). Improvement of
public transport services for non-cycling travelers. Travel
Behaviour and Society, 16, 235–240. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.tbs.2018.03.004
Ganzon, M. K. (2022). Discovering the role of informal transport
in tourism in developing countries. Journal of the Eastern Asia
Society for Transportation Studies, 14, 2470–2482.
Geisser, S. (1974). A predictive approach to the random effect
model. Biometrika, 61(1), 101–107. https://doi.org/10.1093/
biomet/61.1.101
Gössling, S., Scott, D., Hall, C. M., Ceron, J. P., & Dubois, G. (2012).
Consumer behaviour and demand response of tourists to
climate change. Annals of Tourism Research, 39(1), 36–58.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2011.11.002
Gronau, W. (2017). Encouraging behavioural change towards
sustainable tourism: a German approach to free public trans-
port for tourists. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 25(2), 265–
275. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2016.1198357
Gross, S., & Grimm, B. (2018). Sustainable mode of transport
choices at the destination – public transport at German des-
tinations. Tourism Review, 73(3), 401–420. https://doi.org/10.
1108/TR-11-2017-0177
Guerrero-Ibañez, J., Contreras-Castillo, J., & Zeadally, S. (2021).
Deep learning support for intelligent transportation
systems. Transactions on Emerging Telecommunications
Technologies, 32(3), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1002/ett.4169
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2020).
Multivariate data analysis (8th ed.). Cengage.
Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2017). A
Primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling
(PLS-SEM). Sage.
Hair, J. F., Risher, J. J., Sarstedt, M., & Ringle, C. M. (2019). When to
use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. European
Business Review, 31(1), 2–24. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-11-
2018-0203
Hall, C. M., Le-Klähn, D. T., & Ram, Y. (2017). Tourism, public trans-
port and sustainable mobility. Channel View Publications.
Hamidi, Z., & Zhao, C. (2020). Shaping sustainable travel behav-
iour: Attitude, skills, and access all matter. Transportation
482 M. J. KIM ET AL.
Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 88, 102566.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2020.102566
Hassan, A. S., & Meyer, D. F. (2022). Does countries’ environ-
mental, social and governance (ESG) risk rating influence
international tourism demand? A case of the Visegrád Four.
Journal of Tourism Futures, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1108/
JTF-05-2021-0127
Ionescu, G. H., Firoiu, D., Pirvu, R., & Vilag, R. D. (2019). The impact
of ESG factors on market value of companies from travel and
tourism industry. Technological and Economic Development of
Economy, 25(5), 820–849. https://doi.org/10.3846/tede.2019.
10294
IPCC. (2010). Meeting report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change expert meeting on detection and attribution
related to anthropogenic climate change [eds. Stocker, T.F.,
C.B. Field, D. Qin, V. Barros, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, P.M.
Midgley, & K.L. Ebi]. IPCC Working Group I Technical
Support Unit, University of Bern.
J.P. Morgan Asset Management. (2022). ESG-aligned transport
investing. https://am.jpmorgan.com/kr/en/asset-
management/institutional/insights/portfolio-insights/
alternatives/esg-aligned-transport-investing/.
Juschten, M., & Hössinger, R. (2021). Out of the city – but how
and where? A mode-destination choice model for urban–
rural tourism trips in Austria. Current Issues in Tourism, 24
(10), 1465–1481. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2020.
1783645
xKarpudewan, M. (2019). The relationships between values,
belief, personal norms, and climate conserving behaviors of
Malaysian primary school students. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 237, 117748. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.
2019.117748
Kim, M. J., Bonn, M., & Hall, C. M. (2022). Traveler biosecurity
behavior during the COVID-19 pandemic: Effects of interven-
tion, resilience, and Sustainable Development Goals. Journal
of Travel Research, 61(7), 1599–1618. https://doi.org/10.1177/
00472875211034582
Kim, M. J., & Hall, C. M. (2019). Can climate change awareness
predict pro-environmental practices in restaurants?
Comparing high and low dining expenditure. Sustainability,
11(23), 6777. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11236777
Kim, M. J., & Hall, C. M. (2022a). Application of EMGB to study
impacts of public green space on active transport behavior:
Evidence from South Korea. International Journal of
Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(12), 7459.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19127459
Kim, M. J., & Hall, C. M. (2022b). Do smart apps encourage tour-
ists to walk and cycle? Comparing heavy versus non-heavy
users of smart apps. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research,
27(7), 763–779. https://doi.org/10.1080/10941665.2022.
2119423
Kim, M. J., & Hall, C. M. (2022c). Does active transport create a
win-win situation for environmental and human health?
The moderating effect of leisure and tourism activity.
Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 52, 487–
498. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2022.08.007
Kim, M. J., & Hall, C. M. (2022d). Is walking or riding your bike
when a tourist different? Applying VAB theory to better
understand active transport behavior. Journal of
Environmental Management, 311, 114868. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.jenvman.2022.114868
Kim, M. J., & Hall, C. M. (2022e). The influence of personal and
public health and smart applications on biking behavior in
South Korea. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 1–14.
Kim, M. J., & Hall, C. M. (2023). Is tourist walkability and well-
being different? Current Issues in Tourism, 26(2), 171–176.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2021.2017409
Kim, M. J., Hall, C. M., Chung, N., Kim, M., & Sohn, K. (2023a). Does
using public transport affect tourist subject well-being and
behavior relevant to sustainability? VAB Theory and AI
Benefits. Current Issues in Tourism, Accepted.
Kim, M. J., Hall, C. M., & Kim, M. (2023b). What is significant for
engagement in cycling and walking in South Korea?
Applying value-belief-norm theory. Travel Behaviour and
Society, 32, 100571. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tbs.2023.02.008
Kim, M. J., Hall, C. M., Kwon, O., Hwang, K., & Kim, S. J. (2023c).
Orbital and sub-orbital space tourism: Motivation, constraint,
and artificial intelligence. Tourism Review, https://doi.org/10.
1108/TR-01-2023-0017
Korsgaard, M. A., & Roberson, L. (1995). Procedural justice in per-
formance evaluation: The role of instrumental and non-
instrumental voice in performance appraisal discussions.
Journal of Management, 21(4), 657–669. https://doi.org/10.
1177/014920639502100404
Kuo, K. C., Yu, H. Y., Lu, W. M., & Le, T. T. (2022). Sustainability and
corporate performance: moderating role of environmental,
social, and governance investments in the transportation
sector. Sustainability, 14(7), 4095. https://doi.org/10.3390/
su14074095
Lee, E., & Kim, G. (2022). Analysis of domestic and international
green infrastructure research trends from the ESG perspec-
tive in South Korea. International Journal of Environmental
Research and Public Health, 19(12), 7099. https://doi.org/10.
3390/ijerph19127099
Lee, J., Kim, S., & Kim, E. (2022a). Environmental responsibility,
social responsibility, and governance from the perspective
of auditors. International Journal of Environmental Research
and Public Health, 19(19), 12181. https://doi.org/10.3390/
ijerph191912181
Lee, K. E., Mokhtar, M., Khalid, R. M., Goh, T. L., Simon, N., & Wang,
K. C. M. (2022b). Strategies for a low carbon island towards
climate change adaptation and mitigation (Goal 13). In R.
M. Khalid, & A. J. Maidan (Eds.), Good governance and the sus-
tainable development goals in Southeast Asia (pp. 155–165).
Routledge.
Lee, S. (2013). Valuing convenience in public transport in the
Korean context. International Transport Forum Discussion
Paper. OECD.
Le-Klähn, D. T., & Hall, C. M. (2015). Tourist use of public transport
at destinations – a review. Current Issues in Tourism, 18(8),
785–803. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2014.948812
Le-Klähn, D. T., Hall, C. M., & Gerike, R. (2014). Analysis of visitor
satisfaction with public transport in Munich. Journal of Public
Transportation, 17(3), 68–85. https://doi.org/10.5038/2375-
0901.17.3.5
Lobova, S. V., Bogoviz, A. V., & Alekseev, A. N. (2022). Sustainable
AI in environmental economics and management: Current
trends and post-COVID perspective. Frontiers in
Environmental Science, 10(August), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.
3389/fenvs.2022.951672
Luminator. (2023). Artificial intelligence in public transport.
https://luminator.com/en-uk/company/news-en/artificial-

intelligence-in-public-transport.html#:~:text=For public
transport%2C artificial intelligence, and the safety of
passengers.
Ma, L., Graham, D. J., & Stettler, M. E. J. (2021). Air quality impacts
of new public transport provision: A causal analysis of the
Jubilee Line Extension in London. Atmospheric Environment,
245, 118025. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2020.
118025
Miehe, R., Finkbeiner, M., Sauer, A., & Bauernhansl, T. (2022). A
system thinking normative approach towards integrating
the environment into value-added accounting—paving the
way from carbon to environmental neutrality. Sustainability,
14(20), 13603. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142013603
Ministry of the Interior and Safety. (2022). Resident registration
demographics. https://jumin.mois.go.kr/#.
Nayum, A., & Nordfjærn, T. (2021). Predictors of public transport
use among university students during the winter: A MIMIC
modelling approach. Travel Behaviour and Society, 22(May
2020), 236–243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tbs.2020.10.005
Neste. (2023). What is sustainable mobility? https://www.neste.
com/media/sustainable-mobility/what-is-sustainable-
mobility#039ed3ba.
Nikitas, A., Michalakopoulou, K., Njoya, E. T., & Karampatzakis, D.
(2020). Artificial intelligence, transport and the smart city:
Definitions and dimensions of a new mobility era.
Sustainability, 12(7), 2789. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12072789
Nutsugbodo, R. Y., Amenumey, E. K., & Mensah, C. A. (2018). Public
transport mode preferences of international tourists in Ghana:
Implications for transport planning. Travel Behaviour and
Society, 11, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tbs.2017.11.002
Olya, H. G. T. (2023). Towards advancing theory and methods on
tourism development from residents’ perspectives:
Developing a framework on the pathway to impact. Journal
of Sustainable Tourism, 31(2), 329–349. https://doi.org/10.
1080/09669582.2020.1843046
Ozcan, I. C. (2019). Determinants of environmental, social, and
governance disclosure performance of publicly traded air-
ports. International Journal of Transport Economics, 46(3),
77–92.
Pappas, I. O., Giannakos, M. N., & Sampson, D. G. (2019). Fuzzy
set analysis as a means to understand users of 21st-century
learning systems: The case of mobile learning and reflec-
tions on learning analytics research. Computers in Human
Behavior, 92, 646–659. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.
2017.10.010
Perea-Medina, B., Rosa-Jiménez, C., & Andrade, M. J. (2019).
Potential of public transport in regionalisation of main
cruise destinations in Mediterranean. Tourism Management,
74, 382–391. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2019.04.016
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P.
(2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A
critical review of the literature and recommended remedies.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. https://doi.org/
10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
Preston, C. C., & Colman, A. M. (2000). Optimal number of
response categories in rating scales: Reliability, validity, dis-
criminating power, and respondent preferences. Acta
Psychologica, 104(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0001-
6918(99)00050-5
Qiao, G., & Gao, J. (2017). Chinese tourists’ perceptions of climate
change and mitigation behavior: An application of norm
ASIA PACIFIC JOURNAL OF TOURISM RESEARCH 483
activation theory. Sustainability, 9(8), 1322. https://doi.org/
10.3390/su9081322
Ragin, C. C. (2017). User’s guide to Fuzzy-set/Qualitative
Comparative Analysis. Manual based on fsQCA 3.0. https://
www.socsci.uci.edu/~cragin/fsQCA/software.shtml.
Rajabi, E., Nowaczyk, S., Pashami, S., & Bergquist, M. (2023). A
knowledge-based AI framework for mobility as a service.
Sustainability, 15(3), 2717. https://doi.org/10.3390/
su15032717
Rasoolimanesh, S. M., Ringle, C. M., Sarstedt, M., & Olya, H. (2021).
The combined use of symmetric and asymmetric approaches:
partial least squares-structural equation modeling and fuzzy-
set qualitative comparative analysis. International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, 33(5), 1571–1592.
Ringle, C. M., Wende, S., & Becker, J. M. (2022). SmartPLS 4. http://
www.smartpls.com.
Sheng, L., & Zhang, L. (2022). Understanding the determinants
for predicting citizens’ travel mode change from private
cars to public transport in China. Frontiers in Psychology, 13,
1–14.
S&P Global Ratings. (2022). ESG evaluation key sustainability
factors: Transportation. https://www.spglobal.com/_assets/
documents/ratings/research/100272864.pdf.
Stone, M. (1974). Cross-validatory choice and assessment of stat-
istical predictions. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 36
(2), 111–147.
Sun, C., Zhang, W., Fang, X., Gao, X., & Xu, M. (2019). Urban public
transport and air quality: Empirical study of China cities.
Energy Policy, 135, 110998. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.
2019.110998
Sun, T. Q. (2021). Adopting artificial intelligence in public health-
care: The effect of social power and learning algorithms.
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public
Health, 18(23), 12682. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182312682
Switzerland Tourism. (2022). Sustainable travel by public
transport. https://www.myswitzerland.com/en/planning/abouts-
witzerland/ sustainability/sustainable-travel-by-public-transport/
Tan, W. K., & Lin, C. Y. (2020). Driverless car rental at tourist des-
tinations: from the tourists’ perspective. Asia Pacific Journal of
Tourism Research, 25(11), 1153–1167. https://doi.org/10.
1080/10941665.2020.1825007
Tang, J., Yuan, X., Ramos, V., & Sriboonchitta, S. (2019). Does air
pollution decrease inbound tourist arrivals? The case of
Beijing. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 24(6), 597–
605. https://doi.org/10.1080/10941665.2019.1610004
Tomej, K., & Liburd, J. J. (2020). Sustainable accessibility in rural
destinations: a public transport network approach. Journal of
Sustainable Tourism, 28(2), 222–239. https://doi.org/10.1080/
09669582.2019.1607359
Tong, L., Yan, W., & Manta, O. (2022). Artificial intelligence influ-
ences intelligent automation in tourism: A mediating role of
Internet of Things and Environmental, Social, and Governance
investment. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 10, 1–15.
Tourgo. (2022). Domestic travel survey result report following
COVID-19. https://know.tour.go.kr/ptourknow/knowplus/
kChannel/kChannelReport/kChannelReportDetail19Re.do?
seq=102939.
UN. (2022). What Is Climate Change? | United Nations. https://
www.un.org/en/climatechange/what-is-climate-change.
United Nations, Economic and Social Commission for Asia and
the Pacific (ESCAP). (2021). Review of developments in
484 M. J. KIM ET AL.
transport in Asia and the Pacific: Towards sustainable,
inclusive and resilient urban passenger transport in Asian
cities.
Wang, K., Kong, H., Bu, N., Xiao, H., Qiu, X., & Li, J. (2022). AI in
health tourism: developing a measurement scale. Asia
View publication stats
Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 27(9), 954–966. https://
doi.org/10.1080/10941665.2022.2142620
Xu, X., & Liu, J. (2022). Artificial intelligence humor in service
recovery. Annals of Tourism Research, 95, 103439. doi:10.
1016/j.annals.2022.103439