Role of religiosity in shaping pro-environmental behavior during travel: a systematic review

Tourism scholars are increasingly exploring ways to engage tourists in environmental behavior (Khan et al., 2025). Their research examines how individual attributes, destination attributes and environmental psychological factors (e.g. environmental values, beliefs, norms, emotions, attitudes and awareness) influence tourists’ environmental behavior (Lin et al., 2022b). Within this growing body of work, attention is also turning to the role of religiosity, also known as the degree of religious commitment, in shaping environmental behavior across both tourism and broader societal contexts (Feldhaus et al., 2022; Jalees et al., 2026; Liu et al., 2025; Muralidharan et al., 2024). While the positive role of religions in shaping the moral behavior of believers is widely acknowledged, all major religions also teach the value of environmental protection (Islam et al., 2025). The value of this is profound considering that approximately 75.8% of the world’s population identifies with a religion, and that, keeping pace with the growing world population, the number of followers of various religions is increasing (Hackett et al., 2025).

Religious individuals commonly relate their religious beliefs (e.g. stewardship) to the environment. A survey conducted by the Pew Research Center found that 68% of highly religious Americans consider the Earth sacred, and 92% believe that they are given a stewardship responsibility by God to protect and care for the Earth (Alper, 2022). However, this survey also reveals that these highly religious Americans are less concerned about climate change and are unwilling to take personal responsibility for it. Rather, they believe that climate change is not a serious problem because God controls change. Overall, this survey highlights the coexistence of divergent beliefs (stewardship vs a controlling God) among religious people, underscoring the nuanced and multifaceted relationship between religiosity and environmental behavior.

Empirical studies on the relationship between religiosity and sustainable consumption yield diverse and mixed results. Religiosity has been shown to predict sustainable consumption behavior (Alotaibi and Abbas, 2022; Muralidharan et al., 2024), and amplify the effects of predictors (e.g. environmental attitude, concern and knowledge) on sustainable consumption behavior (Begum et al., 2021; Bhuian and Sharma, 2017). However, religiosity has been found to discourage some kinds of environmental behavior (e.g. environmental demonstrations) (Zemo and Nigus, 2020). Moreover, the existing literature highlights that the impact of religiosity on environmental behavior varies according to different measures of religiosity (e.g. intrinsic religiosity, extrinsic religiosity, church attendance and the importance of God), religious traditions and behavioral and cultural contexts (Wang et al., 2020a; Zemo and Nigus, 2020).

Studies undertaken within the tourism context have used different measures of religiosity and environmental behavior (e.g. green hotel booking, donation, recycling and garbage disposal) (Gohary et al., 2022; Kala and Chaubey, 2023) and have been conducted in various religious and cultural contexts (e.g. Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism and Islam) (Agag and Colmekcioglu, 2020; Feldhaus et al., 2022; Kala and Chaubey, 2023; Wang et al., 2020a), contributing to mixed, contradictory and inconclusive findings. For example, a study with Buddhist and Taoist respondents found that intrinsic religiosity positively predicted intentions to conserve resources in a hotel setting (Wang et al., 2020b). In contrast, a study with American respondents found that high God salience reduced environmental concern and intention to donate to sustainable tourism initiatives (Gohary et al., 2022). Similarly, Feldhaus et al. (2022) conducted a study of visitors to a Catholic convention and reported no significant association between self-reported religiosity and donations for climate protection.

Collectively, these mixed findings point to the value of a review to help clarify the nature of the relationship between religiosity and pro-environmental behavior (PEB) within the tourism context. Such a context is often characterized by high degree of hedonism and is thus distinct from that of general consumer behavior. Beyond these mixed results, the literature explored multiple roles of religiosity, such as direct, indirect and moderating, in shaping environmental behavior, further complicating the religiosity and environmental behavior relationship (Agag and Colmekcioglu, 2020; Ullah et al., 2023; Wang et al., 2020b). Given this fragmentation, there is a clear need for a systematic review that can synthesize the diverse results and clarify these inconsistencies. While Orellano et al. (2020) reviewed the influence of religion on sustainable consumption among general consumers, and Lin et al. (2022b) reviewed PEB within hospitality and tourism without considering religiosity, neither study addressed the intersection of religiosity and tourism-specific environmental behavior. Our systematic review fills this gap by synthesizing measurable empirical findings. Accordingly, qualitative and conceptual studies were excluded to ensure methodological consistency and focus on quantifiable evidence.

This systematic review synthesizes and critically evaluates existing empirical evidence on the relationship between religiosity and PEB and clarifies the underlying mechanism through which religiosity affects PEB. In addition, the review identifies methodological limitations and key gaps in the literature, and it provides recommendations for future research.

The paper is structured as follows. First, it introduces the concepts of religiosity and PEB, along with commonly used theories (sub-sections 1.1, 1.2, and 1.3). Section 2 describes the methods, including the literature search process, study selection criteria, and data extraction process (sub-sections 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3). Section 3 presents the results, including a summary of the study characteristics, the effects of religiosity on PEB, a methodological critique of the selected studies, and the identification of research gaps and future research directions (sub-sections 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, and 3.4). Section 4 concludes by discussing the paper's implications and limitations.

PEBs are behaviors that an individual consciously engages in to minimize environmental harm or to produce environmental benefits (Kollmuss and Agyeman, 2002). The term PEB has been synonymously used with labels such as sustainable, environmentally friendly, environmentally responsible, ecological and green behavior (Jalees et al., 2026; Lin et al., 2022b; Orellano et al., 2020). Some examples of PEB in tourism include selecting green hotels, making environmental donations, conserving resources (e.g. water and electricity), supporting environmental policies, volunteering for environmental protection, dismissing unsustainable transport and service providers and avoiding environmentally harmful vacation activities (Awan et al., 2026; Gohary et al., 2022; Juvan and Dolnicar, 2017; Lee et al., 2013). These PEBs can be classified into public-sphere PEB and private-sphere PEB (Haldorai et al., 2024). Private-sphere PEB encompasses individuals’ everyday actions aimed at protecting the environment (e.g. recycling, using eco-friendly products, conserving energy, water and other resources and using eco-friendly transportation). In contrast, public-sphere PEB encompasses civil or collective actions aimed at influencing environmental policy, and general public behavior (e.g. supporting environmental organizations, advocating for environmental policy and signing a petition) (Haldorai et al., 2024). PEB can also be classified into high-effort and low-effort PEB (Ramkissoon et al., 2013). Despite greater environmental impacts, high-effort PEB requires a greater investment of resources (e.g. time, money and effort) compared to low-effort PEB and is therefore more challenging to adopt (Xu et al., 2025).

Empirical evidence suggests that a multitude of environmental, psychological and psycho-spiritual drivers, such as personal environmental values, emotions, obligations and religiosity, can facilitate the adoption of PEB (Lin et al., 2022a, 2022b). However, the drivers of such behaviors among tourists are not universally applicable across all contexts. Rather, they vary significantly depending on the specific type of behavior (e.g. donation, recycling and energy saving) being considered (Juvan and Dolnicar, 2017). This variation can be further influenced by the nature of the behavior itself, such as whether it occurs in the private or public sphere, or whether it requires high or low effort (Haldorai et al., 2024; Ramkissoon et al., 2013). Importantly, even when individuals hold strong environmental attitudes and concerns, the translation of these into tangible PEB can be hindered by a range of individual, social and institutional barriers (Kollmuss and Agyeman, 2002).

Religiosity refers to the degree of commitment to religion, encompassing religious beliefs, experiences, intellect and both private and public practices (Huber and Huber, 2012). Religiosity reflects an individual’s adherence to religious beliefs, values, norms or behavioral practices (Huzaini et al., 2025; Wang et al., 2020b). For individuals affiliated with monotheist religions, religiosity is the belief in God and commitment to follow God’s commandments or prescriptions (Wang et al., 2020a). Religiosity differs from religion. Religion operates at the macro level, encouraging followers to adhere to a belief system, values, norms and other prescriptions. Religiosity, which operates at the microlevel, is a subset of religion (Liu et al., 2025; Wang et al., 2020a). Religiosity is a subjective and multidimensional concept, meaning that there are different ways an individual can be religious (Fukuyama, 1961; Glock, 1962; Huzaini et al., 2025; Stolz, 2009). Religiosity can be expressed through praying, making sacrifices, reading scripture, believing in, loving or fearing god, and participating in rituals at home or at a religious institution (Stolz, 2009). Fukuyama (1961) proposed cognitive, cultic, creedal and devotional dimensions, each reflecting different aspects of religiosity. Building on this, Glock (1962) proposed five core dimensions, including the experiential, ritualistic, ideological, intellectual and consequential dimensions. In the experiential or devotional dimension, emphasis is placed on experience, including religious emotions or feelings. In the ritualistic or cultic dimension, emphasis is placed on individuals’ religious practices, encompassing both private and public aspects. In the ideological or creedal dimension, emphasis is placed on an individual’s adherence to religious beliefs, including what they believe, salience of beliefs and the functions those beliefs serve. In the intellectual or cognitive dimension, emphasis is placed on knowledge about basic tenets or sacred scriptures. The consequential dimension involves the secular effects on an individual’s experience, beliefs, practices and knowledge about religion (Fukuyama, 1961; Glock, 1962).

Religiosity can be classified into intrinsic and extrinsic religiosity (Wang et al., 2020a; Wang et al., 2020b). Allport and Ross (1967) proposed these two dimensions of religiosity: extrinsic and intrinsic religiosity. Intrinsically oriented individuals prioritize religion above self. They embrace their religious beliefs and prescriptions and try to live accordingly (Allport and Ross, 1967). On the other hand, extrinsically oriented individuals use their religion for their own ends. They use their religion for different purposes, such as security, comfort, socialization, status and self-justification (Allport and Ross, 1967). Extrinsic religiosity encompasses religious affiliation or denominational membership, participation in devotional practices or organized religious activities and membership in religious communities (Wang et al., 2020a). Intrinsic religiosity shares similarities with Glock’s experiential and ideological religiosity, as both involve internal aspects of religious commitments and experiences. Extrinsic religiosity, on the other hand, has some similarities with ritualistic religiosity, which emphasizes external aspects of religious commitments, such as participation in religious rituals. Lenski proposed four dimensions to evaluate religiosity: associational, communal, doctrinal orthodoxy and devotionalism (Lenski, 1971). The associational dimension involves attending religious services. The communal dimension involves participating in collective religious activities. Doctrinal orthodoxy involves intellectual acceptance of doctrines prescribed by religious groups or institutions. Devotionalism involves communication with God through private religious activities. The intrinsic and extrinsic dimensions of religiosity share some similarities with Lenski’s communal, associational and devotional dimensions.

Religiosity is associated with life satisfaction, a sense of belonging, happiness, mental health and traits such as compassion, honesty, altruism and morality (Glock, 1962; Holdcroft, 2006). It is linked to morality and ethics (Liu et al., 2025). However, it can also correlate negatively with superstition, prejudice, rejection of science and resistance to progress (Jensen, 2014). Prior studies have used diverse measures of religiosity, reflecting varied conceptualizations of the construct. Such heterogeneity in measurement approaches may contribute to inconsistencies in empirical findings (Minton, 2023). Again, this underscores the need for a systematic review to explore the relationship between religiosity and PEB, resolve existing ambiguities and clarify which measure of religiosity fosters or dampens PEB.

Religiosity can influence diverse aspects of life, including an individual’s lifestyle and consumption decision-making (Wang et al., 2020b). It is widely regarded as a cultural factor that shapes consumption values, beliefs and norms, as well as our environmental attitudes (Agag and Colmekcioglu, 2020). Religiosity may also encourage individuals to adhere to social norms, gain acceptance within religious communities and avoid sanctions for norm violations (Ullah et al., 2023). Their environmental norms are informed by religious teachings, such as stewardship, which holds that humans are entrusted with the responsibility to care for all other creatures (Huzaini et al., 2025; Ullah et al., 2023). Religiosity shapes an individual’s ethical framework through which individuals evaluate actions or behavior (Huzaini et al., 2025). Religious individuals associate their religious beliefs with specific destinations, and such destination-specific religious beliefs can shape their relationship with the destination and their behavior therein (Huzaini et al., 2025).

Existing research has widely used the theory of planned behavior (TPB), the norm activation model (NAM) and the value-belief-norm (VBN) theory in investigating PEB (Awan et al., 2026). TPB asserts that attitude (i.e. favorable or unfavorable evaluation of a certain action), subjective norms (i.e. social pressure individuals feel to perform or not perform a certain behavior) and perceived behavior control (i.e. the control or ability that individuals think they have to perform or avoid a certain behavior) affect intention, which, in turn, affects behavior (Ajzen, 1985). NAM asserts that environmental beliefs, particularly awareness of consequences and ascription of responsibility, activate personal norms (i.e. moral obligation to act), leading to environmental behavior (Schwartz, 1977). VBN theory extends the NAM by integrating personal environmental values (e.g. biospheric, altruistic and egoistic values) as a predictor of environmental beliefs. This theory asserts that environmental values affect environmental beliefs, which, in turn, activate norms, which lead to environmental behavior (Stern, 2000). All three theories emphasize the development of norms for the adoption of environmental behavior.

Religiosity inherently encompasses values, beliefs and norms. Religious environmental teachings (e.g. stewardship of nature, the unity of humans and nature) and other moral teachings (e.g. frugality, balance, nonviolence, interdependence and harmony), as well as religious practices (e.g. the use of nature for sacred ritual purposes like meditation), shape believers’ environmental values, beliefs and behavioral norms (Islam et al., 2025). Existing studies on environmental psychology have used religiosity as both a predictor and a moderator of TPB constructs (Agag and Colmekcioglu, 2020; Hermawan et al., 2025; Huzaini et al., 2025; Ullah et al., 2023; Wang et al., 2020a) and showed a statistically significant association between religiosity and environmental cognitions and behavior.

A systematic and comprehensive database search was conducted to identify relevant literature from the three most popular and largest databases: Scopus, Web of Science and EBSCOhost. The search was conducted using different keywords in various combinations. Keywords related to religiosity included “religiosity,” “religious beliefs,” “faith,” “religious,” “religious commitment,” “spirituality” and “religion.” Keywords related to tourists include “tourist,” “traveler,” “traveller,” “visitor” and “pilgrim.” Keywords related to environment included “environmental,” “sustainable,” “pro-environmental,” “environmentally friendly,” “environment,” “environmentally responsible,” “Ecological,” “Green” and finally keywords related to behavior or behavioral intention included “behavior,” “behaviour,” “behavioral,” “behavioural,” “willingness,” “preference,” “choice” and “intention.” Various keyword combinations were searched within the “Title, Abstract, Keywords” in Scopus database, within “Topic” in Web of Science database and within “All field” in EBSCOhost database. The databases were searched on October 30, 2025. The Boolean search strings for the three databases are as follows:

Scopus: (TITLE-ABS-KEY ((“religiosity” OR “religious beliefs” OR “faith” OR “religious” OR “religious commitment” OR “spirituality” OR “religion”)) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY ((“tourist” OR “traveler” OR “Traveller” OR “visitor” OR “pilgrim”)) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY ((“environmental” OR “sustainable” OR “pro-environmental” OR “environmentally friendly” OR “environment” OR “environmentally responsible” OR “Ecological” OR “Green”)) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY ((“behavior” OR “behaviour” OR “behavioral” OR “behavioural” OR “willingness” OR “preference” OR “choice” OR “intention”))).

Web of Science: “religiosity” OR “religious beliefs” OR “faith” OR “religious” OR “religious commitment” OR “spirituality” OR “religion” (Topic) and “tourist” OR “traveler” OR “Traveller” OR “visitor” OR “pilgrim” (Topic) and “environmental” OR “sustainable” OR “pro-environmental” OR “environmentally friendly” OR “environment” OR “environmentally responsible” OR “Ecological” OR “Green” (Topic) and “behavior” OR “behaviour” OR “behavioral” OR “behavioural” OR “willingness” OR “preference” OR “choice” OR “intention” (Topic).

EBSCOhost: (“religiosity” OR “religious beliefs” OR “faith” OR “religious” OR “religious commitment” OR “spirituality” OR “religion”) AND (“tourist” OR “traveler” OR “Traveller” OR “visitor” OR “pilgrim”) AND (“environmental” OR “sustainable” OR “pro-environmental” OR “environmentally friendly” OR “environment” OR “environmentally responsible” OR “Ecological” OR “Green”) AND (“behavior” OR “behaviour” OR “behavioral” OR “behavioural” OR “willingness” OR “preference” OR “choice” OR “intention”).

In the preliminary phase, the search results were filtered by publication year, language, report type and discipline. Only search results that met the inclusion criteria were considered for this study. For the preliminary filtering of sources, the inclusion criteria required that publications be from the last 20 years (2006–2025), written in English, and published specifically as journal articles. Eligible subject areas included social science, business, management and accounting, environmental science, psychology, economics, econometrics and finance, energy, arts and humanities, earth and planetary sciences and multidisciplinary fields. Conversely, the exclusion criteria eliminated any publications released before 2006 or written in languages other than English. In addition, sources published as book chapters, conference papers, reviews, conference reviews, books or editorials were excluded. Subject areas outside the scope of interest, such as medicine, computer science, mathematics, engineering, decision sciences, agriculture and biological sciences and neuroscience, were also excluded from consideration.

After preliminary filtering, the search results were again reviewed against the inclusion and exclusion criteria based on title and abstract reading. In this stage, the decision to include or exclude was as follows:

• Population: Studies on tourists, travelers, visitors and pilgrims are included; studies on residents, tourism service providers and the nontourist population are excluded.

• Phenomena of interest: Studies that examined the relationship between different measures of religiosity and environmental behavior (sustainable, pro-environmental, environmentally responsible, ecological, green behavior) are included. Studies that did not use measures of religiosity and environmental behavior as variables or constructs are excluded.

• Study design: Only quantitative studies are included. Qualitative studies and conceptual papers are excluded to ensure methodological consistency and focus on quantifiable evidence.

• Context: Only studies on tourism, hospitality, leisure, pilgrimage or religious tourism are included. Studies on nontourism contexts, such as the home and workplace, are excluded.

We followed the PRISMA guidelines to conduct the systematic review (Page et al., 2021). The EndNote reference management tool was used to screen search results against eligibility criteria. An illustration of the entire process, including the initial search, screening and inclusion, is shown in Figure 1. A total of 336 studies appeared in the initial search results. We followed a step-by-step process to screen the initial search results. First, by applying the initial filters, 121 studies (non-English = 29, nonacademic articles = 70 and nontourism and hospitality discipline = 22) were excluded from the review process. Second, 34 duplicate studies were removed from further screening. Third, the titles and abstracts of the remaining 181 studies were reviewed against predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria and 151 were excluded for not meeting eligibility criteria. Fourth, 30 studies that met the inclusion criteria were retrieved for full-text reading. Fifth, an additional 22 studies were removed after a full-text review, resulting in a total of 8 studies eligible for inclusion from the database search results. However, two new studies were included through a reference check of the previous systematic review articles and selected articles. Finally, ten studies were considered relevant and selected for analysis. A quality assessment table for the included studies is provided in  Appendix 1.

A data extraction table was developed using Microsoft Excel to facilitate the collection of relevant information. The selection of items to be included in the extraction framework was collaboratively determined by three authors through consensus. The first author extracted the following data from the included studies, and the other authors checked the extracted data. Data extracted from selected studies includes: author names, year, name of journal, country of author, research context, research theme, research focus, research design, theory, religions investigated, data collection instruments, indicators of construct (reported or not reported), nature of constructs (single item vs multiple items), nature of construct (reflective vs formative), measurement scale, sampling technique, nature of analysis, controlled variables, measures of religiosity, measures of PEB (general or specific), other constructs, the role of the religiosity construct, predictors, mediators, moderators, key findings, direction and strength of effects, (β) and R-square value. Once the data extraction was performed, the results were presented in tabular format. To structure the results and answer the research questions, the selected studies are classified according to whether they analyzed direct, indirect or moderating effects of religiosity on PEB.

The influence of religiosity on PEB in tourism contexts has attracted attention in the past five years. No published studies have been found between 2006 and 2019. However, ten studies published between 2020 and 2025 met the inclusion criteria for this review. Table 1 presents the descriptive characteristics of the selected studies. Three studies (30%) were conducted in 2020, two (20%) in 2022, another two (20%) in 2023 and three (30%) in 2025, indicating sporadic attention to this topic and a research field in an early stage of development. Geographically, two studies (20%) originate from Indonesia, two (20%) from China, one (10%) each from India and Malaysia and four (40%) involving international collaborations. Six studies (60%) were published in tourism and hospitality journals, and four (40%) were published in nontourism journals. Eight studies (80%) examined pro-environmental behavioral intention (PEBI), while two (20%) examined actual PEB. Methodologically, eight studies (80%) applied correlational analysis based on cross-sectional data and two (20%) used experimental designs. Among the selected studies, the NAM was used most frequently (four studies, 40%), followed by the TPB (three studies, 30%), while each of the following theories was used in a study (10% each): compensatory ethics, ethical behavior, VBN and theory of reasoned action.

Half of the studies collected data through online surveys or online experimental groups, indicating the growing use of online platforms. Eight studies (80%) used nonprobability sampling, and only one (10%) used probability (random) sampling techniques. Seven studies (70%) applied structural equation modeling [partial least square-based structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) or covariance-based structural equation modeling (CB-SEM)], two (20%) used regression and one experimental study (10%) used ANCOVA. Notably, half of the studies did not control for demographic or external variables, limiting internal validity. Four studies (40%) focused on a single religion, four (40%) on multiple religions, while two (20%) have no religion specified. Religiosity has appeared as both a predictor and a moderator, with eight studies (80%) examining its predictive role and two (20%) examining its moderating role. Table 2 provides more detailed information about each study.

Out of ten studies, seven examined the direct and indirect effects of religiosity on PEB or PEBI, while four studies examined the moderating effects of religiosity on the relationship between PEB or PEBI and their predictors. Table 3 summarizes the findings of the included studies.

Among the six studies that examined the association between religiosity and intention for PEB, four reported a positive association (Agag and Colmekcioglu, 2020; Hermawan et al., 2025; Liu et al., 2025; Wang et al., 2020a), one study reported no significant association (Feldhaus et al., 2022; Wang et al., 2020a) and one reported a negative association (Gohary et al., 2022). More specifically, these studies reported a positive association between religious beliefs and intention for general PEB (Liu et al., 2025), between Islamic environmental values and intention for general PEB (Hermawan et al., 2025) and between Islamic religiosity and preference for green hotel (Agag and Colmekcioglu, 2020). Wang et al. (2020a) reported that intrinsic religiosity positively relates to intention for resource conservation, but extrinsic religiosity does not, indicating that different dimensions of religiosity can affect environmental behavior differently. Contrarily, Gohary et al. (2022) reported that high God salience and benevolent views of God reduce intention for environmental donation, and preference for green hotels. In this experimental study, individuals with high God salience exhibited lower intention for these forms of PEB compared to those with low God salience and views of a punitive God. Alternatively, Wang et al. (2020b) found nonsignificant association between intrinsic and extrinsic religiosity and preference for green hotels.

Studies examining the direct effect of religiosity on actual behavior are very limited. Feldhaus et al. (2022), the only study that examined actual behavior, reported that the religiosity of religious convention visitors does not significantly affect donations for climate protection. Overall, most of the studies suggest that religiosity fosters intentions for low-effort private-sphere PEB. However, when it comes to actual behavior, the effect of religiosity can attenuate and become statistically nonsignificant.

Out of the ten studies, four examined the indirect effects of religiosity on intention for PEB (Gohary et al., 2022; Hermawan et al., 2025; Wang et al., 2020a, 2020b). No one measured the indirect effects of religiosity on actual behavior. These studies examined the mediating roles of environmental psychological drivers (e.g. environmental norms, attitude, concern and connectedness to nature) in the relationship between religiosity and intention for PEB. In these studies, environmental norms, environmental concern, connectedness to nature and frugality consciousness emerged as significant mediators between different forms of religiosity and intention for PEB. Overall, these studies suggest that personal norms, environmental concern, connectedness to nature and positive environmental attitude are underlying mechanisms by which religiosity can promote intention for PEB.

Among the four studies that examined the moderating effects of measures of religiosity on intention for PEB, all found significant positive moderating effects of measures of religiosity (Gohary et al., 2022; Huzaini et al., 2025; Kala and Chaubey, 2023; Ullah et al., 2023; Wang et al., 2020a), suggesting that religiosity enhances the positive effects of environmental psychological (e.g. environmental attitude, beliefs and concern) and normative drivers (e.g. personal and social norms) on intention for PEB.

Among the two studies that examined the moderating effects of religiosity on actual behavior, one study found no significant moderating effects of religiosity on the relationship between signaling (e.g. awareness of religious institutions supporting climate protection) and PEB (e.g. donation for climate protection) (Feldhaus et al., 2022), the other study found that a significant positive moderating effect of religiosity on the relationship between personal and social norms and general PEB (Ullah et al., 2023).

Overall, the findings of the previous studies suggest that tourists’ religiosity enhances the positive effects of key environmental psychological and normative drivers on their intention PEB in tourism destinations (Huzaini et al., 2025; Kala and Chaubey, 2023; Ullah et al., 2023; Wang et al., 2020a). However, one study suggests that tourists’ conceptualization of God (benevolent vs punitive) can lead to divergent outcomes. Tourists who view God as punishing exhibit a stronger preference for PEB, compared to those who see God as benevolent (Gohary et al., 2022). Taken together, these findings highlight that while religiosity generally promotes intention for PEB, the specific nature of religious beliefs and perceptions of God critically shape the direction and intensity of that influence.

Drawing on prior research, we have developed the conceptual framework presented in Figure 2. Given the limited number of studies and their limitations, this model should be regarded as tentative. This model shows that religiosity exerts direct influence on the intention to engage in PEB. In addition, religiosity has an indirect influence on intention to engage in PEB through some mediating constructs, including frugality consciousness, connectedness to nature, environmental concern and personal norms. Moreover, religiosity plays a moderating role in the relationships between environmental attitude, subjective norms, perceived behavioral control and intention to engage in PEB.

Table 4 summarizes the methods of the included studies, and  Appendix 2 summarizes the methodological criticism and our recommendations for future research. The reviewed studies exhibit several notable strengths, including a strong theoretical foundation and the advancement of existing theoretical frameworks through the integration of novel concepts. However, certain limitations are also evident. These include the use of small samples, failure to control extraneous variables, conceptual constraints, nonreporting of measurement items, reliance on nonprobability sampling and a lack of content validity, which collectively undermine transparency, generalizability and external validity of the findings. For example, given the complexity of the model, the sample size used by Hermawan et al. (2025) and Huzaini et al. (2025) may be considered relatively small. Although SmartPLS is recognized for its suitability in dealing with limited sample sizes, particularly when compared to other competing analysis tools (Hair et al., 2019), presence of weak effect sizes necessitates caution. In such cases, increasing the sample size could enhance the statistical power and robustness of the findings (Kline, 2011).

Only three studies controlled for demographic variables and found a significant association with PEB or intention for PEB (Feldhaus et al., 2022; Liu et al., 2025; Wang et al., 2020a), suggesting that age, gender, education and income, if not controlled, may confound the relationship between PEB and its predictors. Moreover, most studies relied on nonprobability sampling techniques. In quantitative research, probability sampling is preferred to ensure unbiased and representative data and to increase the generalizability of the findings (Sarker and AL-Muaalemi, 2022). However, the use of nonprobability sampling in quantitative research is a trade-off between statistical generalizability and practicality, accessibility and feasibility.

A few studies mislabeled constructs, leading to confusion. “Religious practices” was defined as “religious beliefs” (Liu et al., 2025). These two are distinct measures of religiosity (Huber and Huber, 2012), and each may affect PEB differently. Similarly, “destination-specific religious beliefs” was defined as “religious beliefs” (Kala and Chaubey, 2023). Religious beliefs typically involve believing in God or supernatural forces, as well as the existence of the afterlife, among other concepts.

Studies also compromised content validity despite meeting statistical criteria. For example, in a study “religious belief” construct included a behavior-related item: “I behave responsibly to maintain the religious environment of the destination” (Kala and Chaubey, 2023). Similarly, the “willingness-to-pay” construct included items on environmental beliefs, attitude, concern and motivation to pay (e.g. “I believe that the conservation of the waterfall forest areas of XX is crucial to maintaining water availability”) (Huzaini et al., 2025). Together, the items of this construct measure a very general environmentally friendly propensity, which is conceptually different from willingness to pay. Such an issue raises concerns about construct validity and can inflate its correlation with PEB. Moreover, inappropriate phrasing could lead to conceptual confusion and flawed interpretations.

A few studies have not clearly reported the measurement items, thereby affecting transparency and replicability (Ullah et al., 2023). Full disclosure of the measurement items is required to ensure transparency and replicability of the study.

Sometimes, studies depend on cross-sectional data to examine the relationship between intention and actual PEB (Agag and Colmekcioglu, 2020). This undermines the logical foundation of causal inference. Individuals who have already been engaged in the behavior are likely to retrospectively report strong intentions, thereby inflating the observed association between intention and behavior. To examine the intention-behavior relationship, longitudinal data are more relevant, as suggested by the TPB (Ajzen, 1985). Otherwise, the intention may overestimate the effect size, thereby inflating the predictive power of the proposed model.

We found that four studies examined the green hotel selection and environmental donation behavior or intention (Agag and Colmekcioglu, 2020; Feldhaus et al., 2022; Gohary et al., 2022; Wang et al., 2020a). Environmental donation behavior requires financial sacrifices, which could be a significant concern for low-income population groups. The same concern applies to choosing a green hotel, which usually gives a luxury experience at a higher price. Without controlling for financial capacity, measuring such behaviors may underestimate or overestimate the hypothesized relationship. Future researchers should consider the affordability of the general population when investigating these behaviors and compare such behaviors across different income groups.

Our systematic review reveals that research on the interrelationships between religiosity and PEB in the tourism context has received little attention to date. Since 2020, this area has received some sporadic attention from tourism researchers. A few studies exist in this interdisciplinary field; however, due to methodological limitations and inconsistent measurement scales across studies, further research is needed to improve the precision of the results. More than 75% of the world’s population is affiliated with religions (Hackett et al., 2025), and religion has a pervasive influence on human behavior, more specifically, prosocial and citizenship behavior. Interdisciplinary research on religiosity and environmental behavior deserves more attention. Our review identified several research opportunities. In general, more research on this topic is needed worldwide, across different religious traditions and social, cultural, political and economic backgrounds. The existing studies were conducted only in the sociocultural contexts of seven countries (including the USA, Germany, China, India, Pakistan, Indonesia and Egypt), mostly in developing countries in East Asia, South Asia and Southeast Asia. Religions play significant roles in the lives of people in the Middle East, South Asia, Africa and certain countries in Latin America (Burge, 2023). More research in these regions can provide important insights into how religiosity influences environmental behavior in the tourism context.

Existing research has focused more on a few theories, such as the TPB, the NAM and the VBN model. Future research can explore additional theories, such as social identity theory, cognitive dissonance theory, sanctification theory, self-control theory and ethical behavior theory, and expand on them by integrating religiosity, spirituality and other religiously relevant concepts into these frameworks. Religiosity is not merely a matter of beliefs, nor is it limited to only intrinsic and extrinsic practices. It encompasses experiences, private and public religious practices, religious beliefs and intellect (Huber and Huber, 2012). Existing research has used only a few components of religiosity (e.g. extrinsic and intrinsic religiosity, religious beliefs). Future research can use a more comprehensive religiosity scale to examine its direct and indirect effects on PEB. Moreover, existing research can be replicated across different religions by overcoming methodological and other limitations identified in our research.

Wang et al. (2020a) invited research on the role of empathy, emotion and habit in the relationship between religiosity and PEB. Guilt is a moral emotion and an important concept in the major religions. Religious individuals feel guilt for sinful actions and other socially transgressive behavior. Ullah et al. (2023) suggest that ecological guilt affects tourists’ PEB. Future research can examine whether religiosity influences ecological guilt and indirectly contributes to PEB by activating it. Engaging in PEB during travel, when hedonic motives dominate (Soldat et al., 2024), requires higher self-control. Religions encourage believers to develop self-control with religious teachings of heavenly rewards and punishments designed to foster self-control among believers. Environmentally harmful behavior is seen as a failure of self-control. Higher self-control helps individuals control impulsive and socially harmful behaviors, manage negative emotions, achieve goals, improve interpersonal relationships and thereby contribute to maintaining social order (Tangney et al., 2008). Studies have found correlations between self-control and self-reported PEB (Gómez‐Olmedo et al., 2020). Future research can also examine whether religiosity improves self-control and, in turn, indirectly contributes to PEB by fostering self-control.

Different religions sanctify different aspects of nature, and believers treat these elements with respect. Various tourism attractions, such as mountains, caves, rivers, animals and physical structures, are sanctified in religions (Timothy, 2012). A stronger belief in the sanctification of nature has been associated with greater pro-environmental beliefs and willingness to invest personal funds in the environment (Tarakeshwar et al., 2001). Future research can also examine whether religiosity affects perceptions of nature’s sacredness and, in turn, indirectly contributes to PEB.

Existing studies have examined low-effort and private-sphere PEB. Future researchers can examine high efforts (e.g. avoiding travel to ecologically critical areas and traveling during off-peak seasons to reduce overtourism) and the public sphere PEB (e.g. participating in volunteering trips, choosing only eco-certified tour operators or service providers). None of the included studies used longitudinal data. Future studies can use longitudinal data to investigate whether tourists’ PEB attitude and intentions translate into actual PEB and to verify that measures of religiosity can also predict actual behavior. Finally, future research could conduct comparative studies, analyzing interrelationships between religiosity and PEB across different religions. Such studies will help us understand whether doctrinal differences lead to divergent environmental attitudes and behaviors and improve the generalizability of research findings.

Our systematic review has synthesized empirical evidence on the relationship between religiosity and PEB, analyzed the ways in which religiosity shapes PEB during travel, and assessed the methodological strengths and limitations of reviewed studies. It has also identified the key gaps that remain in this emerging area of research. This study contributes to the debate on the relationship between religiosity and environmental behavior by synthesizing prior findings. Most studies included in this review reported that different measures of religiosity have positive direct, indirect and moderating effects on intention for PEB during travel, suggesting that religiosity may contribute to intention for PEB during travel. These findings align with Orellano et al. (2020), whose systematic review on sustainable consumption behavior suggests that religiosity influences the adoption of sustainable consumption behavior in everyday contexts, both directly and indirectly. These findings weaken the argument that religion promotes environmentally harmful behavior through its dominant beliefs (Brown et al., 2022; White, 1967). Notably, the presence of contradictory findings, including one study showing a negative effect of high God salience, a marker of religiosity, on intention for PEB, specifically in the context of green hotel selection and environmental donation (Gohary et al., 2022) and another showing no association between religiosity and green hotel selection intention (Wang et al., 2020b), highlights the complexity of this relationship, especially because religions differ in their underlying beliefs, such as dominion beliefs, stewardship beliefs, beliefs in controlling God. Moreover, the only study that examined the direct effect of religiosity on actual behavior, specifically donation for climate protection, found no significant effect (Feldhaus et al., 2022), indicating that religiosity driven environmental intention may not translate into action. This could be because of different kinds of personal, social and infrastructural barriers that make PEB challenging. Our review has identified the underlying mechanisms, notably frugality consciousness, connectedness to nature, and norms, through which religiosity influences PEB. It also shows that religiosity enhances the effects of environmental attitude, subjective norms and perceived behavioral control on PEB, indicating that the effects of religiosity on PEB extend beyond its direct pathways to strengthen key predictors of established behavioral model, such as TPB.

Our review has revealed certain methodological limitations that include the use of small samples, failure to control extraneous variables (e.g. demographic), conceptual constraints and improper labeling of constructs, nonreporting of measurement items, reliance on nonprobability sampling and a lack of content validity, which collectively undermine transparency, generalizability and external validity of the findings. Collectively, these shortcomings underscore the need for caution in generalizing the results and point to the importance of considering contextual factors, variations in religiosity constructs and measurement approaches in future research. This study provided some recommendations to overcome the shortcomings. The included studies are the pioneers in this field of research and future researchers will likely replicate or build from them. The methodological criticism and directions will help future researchers overcome limitations and follow best practices that will enhance the transparency, replicability, methodological rigor, validity and generalizability of their studies. In addition, our research has identified several research gaps, helping researchers pinpoint where new investigations are most needed.

The findings offer several practical implications for governments, destination managers, service providers and policymakers. First, since most studies show that religiosity enhances intentions to engage in certain PEB, government, policymakers, destination managers and service providers should remove practical barriers, such as inadequate infrastructure or limited access to pro-environmental options, that prevent individuals from acting on their intentions. Second, these organizations can collaborate with religious leaders and institutions (e.g. schools, mosques, churches, temples) to promote religious teachings that encourage PEB both at home and during travel. Prior research also highlighted the importance of religious leaders and institutions in motivating their followers’ environmental behavior (Feldhaus et al., 2022; Hermawan et al., 2025). Moreover, Religious leaders and institutions can highlight environmental protection within religious rituals and community activities, thereby strengthening environmental norms and motivating sustainable actions (Wang et al., 2020a). Third, tourism and hospitality businesses can develop nudges that resonate with visitors’ religiously shaped environmental values, beliefs and norms. Framing pro-environmental actions as consistent with stewardship and moral responsibility may increase compliance. Fourth, tourism and hospitality businesses pursuing sustainable models can segment and target markets (customers) based on religiosity. However, doctrinal differences must be considered, as environmental beliefs and behaviors vary across religions and denominations (Liu et al., 2025). Fifth, some beliefs (e.g. views of benevolent God and dominion beliefs) may reduce perceived personal responsibility for environmental action (Gohary et al., 2022). Campaigns should instead emphasize stewardship, simplicity and frugality, environmental values and norms. Sacred texts can serve as credible sources for sustainability messages. Finally, given mixed evidence, governments, policymakers, destination managers and service providers should not assume that religiosity uniformly predicts all forms of PEB. Campaigns or messages should be tailored to the specific religious values and norms of tourist segments. Where stewardship values are strong, value-based messaging may be effective; where they are not, alternative framings such as health, community benefit or economic benefits may be more effective.

We acknowledge a few limitations. The number of studies included in this systematic review is small, and these studies used different measures of religiosity and PEB, limiting our ability to be conclusive about the effects of religiosity and PEB in travel destinations. With few studies, it is harder to confidently apply the findings to broader populations or contexts. However, the value of the systematic review lies in providing the initial understandings about relationship between religiosity and environmental behavior, identifying methodological limitations that future research can overcome and the research gaps that future studies can address to advance knowledge.