1. This study aims to identify whether gamified environmental interpretation can contribute to improving the sustainability of tourist destinations.
2. The study seeks to determine if gamified environmental interpretation has a greater effect on tourists’ pro-environmental knowledge, attitude, and behavior than a non-gamified version; whether these variables are affected by the psychological distance; and whether psychological distance moderates the effect of environmental interpretation (gamified vs. non-gamified) on the tourist.
3. The literature suggests that psychological distance influences variables associated with pro-environmental behavior, such as intention to adopt pro-environmental behavior, pro-environmental attitude, environmental threat perception, or commitment to the environment.
The article “Gamified Environmental Interpretation as a Strategy for Improving Tourist Behavior in Support of Sustainable Tourism: The Moderating Role of Psychological Distance” is an interesting and well written piece that provides an overview of how gamification can be used as a strategy for improving sustainable tourism practices. The article is based on research conducted by the authors and provides evidence for their claims.
The article is reliable in terms of its sources and evidence presented. It cites relevant studies from other researchers in the field and provides data from their own research to support their claims. Furthermore, it does not make any unsupported claims or present any one-sided reporting.
However, there are some points that could have been explored further in order to provide a more comprehensive analysis of the topic at hand. For example, while the article does discuss how psychological distance affects pro-environmental behavior, it does not explore other factors that may influence this behavior such as cultural differences or socio-economic status. Additionally, while it does mention potential risks associated with gamification strategies such as addiction or overuse of technology, it does not provide any detailed discussion on these topics which could have been beneficial for readers looking for more information on this subject matter.
In conclusion, this article is overall reliable and trustworthy in terms of its sources and evidence presented but could have provided more detail on certain aspects discussed within it in order to provide a more comprehensive analysis of its topic at hand.