The effect of health-perceived risks on domestic travel intention: The moderating role of destination image

Abstract

Domestic travel is a significant path to revive tourism during crises. Tourist destinations use it to compensate for the decline in international tourist arrivals. This study aims to investigate the influence of risks of health crises on domestic travel intention in the UAE, Egypt, and Jordan. It also measures the moderation role of destination image to decrease the impact of health-perceived risks on local travel intentions. A questionnaire was addressed to domestic tourists in the three countries (i.e. UAE, Egypt, and Jordan) to collect data and findings revealed that health risks are of negative influence on local travel intention, and that safe destination image partially decreases the negative impact of perceived risks on travel intentions. Significant implications for destination planners and marketers are then presented.

Keywords

Health travel risks domestic tourism travel intention destination image UAE Egypt Jordan

Introduction

Tourism has been affected by health outbreaks that started with SARS in 2002 and ended with COVID-19 in 2020 (Gössling et al., 2021; Abraham et al., 2021; Khan et al., 2020) which have a significant impact on travel activities. Since the global lockdown because of the declaration of the COVID-19 epidemic in 2020, countries started focusing on domestic tourism to relieve the consequences of the pandemic on international tourism (Volgger et al., 2021). Financial incentives, flexible cancellation policies for bookings, and marketing and promotional efforts have been taken by destinations to encourage domestic travel (UNWTO, 2020). Domestic travel refers to activities taken by residents within their residential country for leisure (UNWTO, 2008). Expressing the importance of domestic travel, the UNWTO (2020) reported that its market size is six times larger than the international one. It counts for 80% or more of all arrivals and generates around 75% of total tourism expenditure in the OECD countries. Arbulú et al. (2021) have mentioned that using domestic tourism in addition to encouraging outbound tourists to travel locally would be useful for Spanish tourism’s significant relief. Chan (2021) has found that the potentialities of domestic tourism could support Malaysian tourism recovery after the pandemic. There are also optimistic expectations of a quick recovery of domestic tourism compared to international tourism (UNWTO, 2020). However, health risks and travel restrictions continue to constitute crucial challenges to domestic travel.

Lu (2021) and Cho et al. (2018) have noticed that perceived travel risk is negatively predicting travel intentions and Rahman et al. (2021) have confirmed that travel risk perceptions significantly lead to avoiding travel to crowded destinations. Magano et al. (2021) have added that psychological factors and perceived health risks significantly and negatively affect travel behaviour. Likewise, Kour and Gupta (2019) have found that risk factors including physical, financial, and performance risks have a detrimental impact on women’s travel intentions.

Scholars state that risk perception is a multi-dimension concept that includes frequent five major dimensions: social, psychological, physical, financial, and functional risks (i.e. Arslan et al., 2013; Cho et al., 2018; Jiang et al., 2022). These travel risks have a negative influence on local travel intention. Nazir et al. (2021) have found that travel risks and constraints have also negatively influenced destination image. Martín-Azami and Ramos-Real (2019) stated that the higher the risk, the worst the destination image is. Recent research (i.e. Chew and Jahari, 2014; Hamouda and Yacoub, 2018; Jiang et al., 2022) has also found that perceived risk negatively affects destination image; therefore, travellers avoid these destinations when making their travel decisions.

As most extant research so far is addressed to investigate the impact of perceived travel risks due to health challenges on international travel behaviour, the present study, differently, aims to test the impact of the perceived health risks of travel on domestic travel intention in a cross-country study: the UAE, Egypt, and Jordan. In addition, with the current ease of travel restrictions, tourist destinations started to improve their image by promoting protection measures and other precaution procedures to attract tourists (for example, hosting the Expo, 2020 in the UAE has crucially improved the image of the destination and encouraged local travel), the current study has employed destination image as a moderator that can help reduce the outcome of perceived travel risk due to COVID-19 on domestic travel intentions. Therefore, the second aim of this study is to measure the moderation impact of destination image on the association between perceived travel risk and local travel intention.

The current study fulfils research gaps of limited studies so far measuring the influence of travel risks on domestic tourism, particularly with the fact that domestic travel is 6:1 in market size of the international one. In addition, it fulfils the lack of studies employing destination image as a moderator to decrease the impact of health travel risks on local travel intention. In addition, this study tests the developed research model in a three-country context to reveal reliable evidence of the effect and produce valid results.

Literature review

Health risks and domestic tourism

Tourism is one of the highest-rated industries supporting development, especially in developing countries (Nguyen Viet et al., 2020). However, it is the most susceptible to crises and the slowest in recovery (Meng et al., 2021). During the twenty-first century, the world has gone through many crises, some of which are caused by nature and others are man-made. Tourism has been influenced by health challenges which have changed tourists’ behaviour and preferences and issues such as cleanliness, integrity, and safeness have come to be main priorities for travellers (Chan, 2021; Dryhurst et al., 2020; Meng et al., 2021). Many travellers have demonstrated extraordinary levels of risk perception, stress, anxiety, lack of desire to travel, fear of infection and contact with potentially polluted materials (Chan, 2021; Magano et al., 2021). Chiu et al. (2019) and Luo and Lam (2020) have realized that the emotional state of individuals influences their behaviour, their choice of destination, and their travel intentions. Meng et al. (2021) have indicated that the risks connected with the COVID-19 epidemic will have extended influences on travel intentions. These impacts vary due to personality differences, travel experiences, social, and cultural backgrounds of tourists (Jiang et al., 2022; Nguyen Viet et al., 2020).

According to Chan (2021) and Neuburger and Egger (2021), encouraging domestic tourism is an intact and feasible path to assist economic recuperation and a solution to facing the deterioration of tourism. Thus, domestic travel behaviour and related attitudes must be suitably comprehended where domestic travellers may go to zones not visited by international tourists, indorsing extra-balanced regional improvement, and addressing seasonality (Arbulú et al., 2021). However, it is difficult to estimate the demand for domestic tourists due to the psychological factors revealed by COVID-19 risks (Chan, 2021).

Travel risk perceptions

Risk is an individual’s personal feeling of uncertainty, while the perceived risk is visualized as the personal contributing factor to foreseeable possible losses. Throughout the past years, the risk perception conception has got a major interest (Dryhurst et al., 2020), and has been described as a perceived risk in different disciplines including topography, political science, sociology, psychology, and marketing studies, then it has grown to be one of the basic elements in the research of consumer behaviour and travel decision-making (Chiu et al., 2019; Perić et al., 2021).

As claimed by Kour and Gupta (2019) and Chiu et al. (2019), risk perceptions are the customer’s view of the instability and negative concerns of purchasing a service or a product or engaging in a particular activity. Jahari et al. (2023) have explained that it is a person’s view of uncertainty and subjection to the prospect of damage or hurt. Furthermore, it is the result of a cognitive assessment of a probable menace, thus, the greater the perceived threat by individuals, the less the possibility of participating in a specific behaviour or obtaining a service. According to Arslan et al. (2013) and Neuburger and Egger (2021), the level of risk consumers perceive is one of the main aspects prompting a buying decision.

According to Cheron and Ritchie (1982) and Chiu et al. (2019), the classification of risk perception contains (1) financial, (2) performance, (3) physical, (4) psychological, (5) social, and (6) time-wasting risks. Subsequently, Simpson and Siguaw (2008) noted that the conventionally used perceived risk classes are performance, financial, social, physical, and psychological risks. Then, Arslan et al. (2013) grouped it as functional, social, physical, financial, and psychological risks.

Throughout the nineties of the last century, the term tourism risks perception (TRP) and safety began to spread, as it became a great source of anxiety due to its influence on tourist behaviour and travel decisions (Bae and Chang, 2021; Cui et al., 2016; Nguyen Viet et al., 2020). Cui et al. (2016) explicated that TRP is a description of a traveller’s attitude and intuitive judgment of risks affecting tourism and business activities.

Chiu et al. (2019) and Meng et al. (2021) have assumed that TRP has been recognized as a manifold concept consisting of various risk elements, and accordingly, making travel-associated decisions is not easy as travellers need to have more information about administering risks and uncertainty of their travel. Angguni and Lenggogeni (2021) have stated that risk perceptions in tourism can be interpreted as tourists' perceptions of the likelihood that something will cause harm and will affect their travel decisions and behaviour. Jiang et al. (2022) have also cleared that the level of environmental risks negatively impacts destination image.

Reviewing the literature on perceived travel risks (i.e. Cui et al., 2016; Cheron and Ritchie, 1982; Chew and Jahari, 2014; Chiu et al., 2019; Jiang et al., 2022; Khan et al., 2019; Sönmez and Graefe, 1998; Yang et al., 2017), the most common and frequent revealed dimensions of risk concept are: psychological, financial, performance, physical, and social risks.

Psychological risks imply the fear and anxiety level of consumers when planning a behaviour (i.e. travelling for leisure) (Chiu et al., 2019). These risks include feeling uncomfortable when thinking to travel for leisure during pandemics, the potential risks that tourists could have if they travel during these times, in addition to fear and anxiety feelings (Chiu et al., 2019; Perić et al., 2021). Chiu et al. (2019), Jonas et al. (2010), and Dryhurst et al. (2020) believe that these risks are perceived as mental and emotional states of tourists affected by previous travel experiences and other demographics in addition to the media, and information search that have a significant impact on travel intentions. Bae and Chang (2021), Kuang et al. (2020) and Neuburger and Egger (2021) have displayed that during environmental threats, individuals tend to have a negative emotional response towards threats causing them to feel more psychologically and mentally worried and thus boosting the protective behaviour of travel avoidance. Abou-Shouk et al. (2022) have concluded that tourists feel afraid and anxious if they think to travel during health crises. Therefore, the first proposition is formed as:

Psychological risks negatively affect local travel intention.

Furthermore, financial risks look at the failure of the product or service to offer value for money (Cho et al., 2018). These risks include the worries of spending too much money to comply with the taken precautions and additional potential charges to have safe and clean food and drinks during pandemics, in addition to the trips conducted during these crises are expected not to achieve the anticipated value for money (Arslan et al., 2013; Chiu et al., 2019). Perić et al. (2021) found that financial risks are negatively affecting travellers’ behaviour. Thus, the second hypothesis is:

Financial risks are negatively affecting local travel intention.

Additionally, social risks refer to the effect of others on purchasing a service (i.e. booking or travelling for leisure during health pandemics) (Chiu et al., 2019). These risks comprise the impact of important people who could affect the travel decisions of others. Jonas et al. (2010), Chiu et al. (2019), and Dryhurst et al. (2020) believe that emotional states and travel intentions are significantly affected by media, information search, and influencers’ word-of-mouth. Arslan et al. (2013) concluded that social risks are a crucial component of perceived risks that significantly affect travellers’ attitudes. Thus, the third hypothesis is developed as:

Social risks are negatively influencing local travel intention.

Physical risks are the possibility of getting physically hurt due to a specific behaviour (i.e., infections during travel) (Chiu et al., 2019). These possibilities include the effects on tourists’ health, infections, and diseases or the potential exposure to their health concerns. Jiang et al. (2022) point out that physical risk perceptions are tourists’ anticipation of the possible damage or loss that they may experience while travelling and influence their travel behavioural decisions. Arslan et al. (2013) found that physical risks are among the crucial factors that negatively affect tourists’ attitudes and behavioural intentions. Thus, the fourth hypothesis is formed as:

Physical risks are of a negative impact on local travel intention.

Moreover, performance risks clarify consumer concerns about the failure of the service or product to achieve customers’ expectations, whether in performance or satisfaction (Arslan et al., 2013). According to Chiu et al. (2019), pandemics could negatively impact the performance of service providers in terms of temporary shutdowns or lacking the anticipated service quality. The underestimation of service quality and providers’ performance may lead to problems in customer satisfaction and behavioural intention (Arslan et al., 2013). Angguni and Lenggogeni (2021), Meng et al. (2021), Neuburger and Egger (2021), and Abou-Shouk et al. (2022) have reported that travel risk perceptions during the pandemics lead to lower demand for tourism. Therefore, the fifth hypothesis is rephrased as follows:

Performance risks are affecting local travel intention.

Furthermore, Neuburger and Egger (2021) and Perić et al. (2021) have stated that travel and tourism itself could be seen as a risk at specific times; particularly when customers believe that tourism would help spread infections (such as in the case of pandemics), and it is risky to use stay establishments (i.e. hotels) because it might expose guests to infections, in addition to the belief that travelling in organised groups will cause health problems and infections of travel group members. Ruan et al. (2017), Kour and Gupta (2019) and Neuburger and Egger (2021) have found that the perceived risks negatively affecting tourists’ travel intentions and may lead to selecting specific safe destinations and avoiding others to decrease these risks. Hence, the sixth hypothesis is structured as:

Tourism-related risks are negatively affecting local travel intention.

Destination image (DI)

DI is the concern taken into consideration in marketing tourist activities due to the belief that a constructive image boosts individuals’ possibility to visit a destination (Nazir et al., 2021). Jiang et al. (2022) and Nguyen Viet et al. (2020) have illuminated that DI is the key factor affecting tourists’ perceptions, travel planning, choice of destination, and overall satisfaction with the trip. As sustained by Ruan et al. (2017), the DI is a mental form that accrues around travel experiences, while Stylidis and Cherifi (2018) delimited that destination image can be used to forecast visitors' behavioural intentions. Tourism DI alters through time according to environmental updates in a way that affects travel decisions and behavioural intention (Ruan et al., 2017).

DI is a multi-dimensional notion (Ding and Wu, 2022; Jiang et al., 2022; Nguyen Viet et al., 2020). It could be cognitive (perception), affective (emotion), and conative (conic). Chaulagain et al. (2019) added a fourth ingredient, the general image. The general image points to the general concept that influences people’s choices of destinations to visit (Zhang et al., 2018). As per Chaulagain et al. (2019) and Jiang et al. (2022) there is a connection between DI and tourist behavioural intentions. TPR and safety are substantial elements that aid in shaping a comprehensive picture of the destination that tourists think carefully about it when making their travel decisions (Chiu et al., 2019; Cui et al., 2016). Ding and Wu (2022) have shown that DI mediates and affects the link between TPR and visit/revisit intention and decreases the effects of risks on visit intentions. Nazir et al. (2021) have also found that DI mediates the relationship between TPR and behavioural intention, and it is negatively affected by these risks. Furthermore, Chew and Jahari (2014) found that DI is mediating the association between TPR of the post-disaster in Japan and the visit intention.

In a similar setting, Abou-Shouk et al. (2022) have measured the moderating effect of protective measures taken by some destinations during COVID-19 (destination image perception as high when destinations adopt strict protection measures, moderate or low adoption of measures) on the connection between travel fear and anxiety during the pandemic. They found that perceiving the destination as a strict adopter of protection measures, compared to moderate and low adopters, has significantly reduced the outcome of fear on travel intention during COVID-19 in both Egypt and the UAE. Thus, where this study aims to inspect the role of destination image in decreasing the effect of perceived risks on travel intention, therefore, differently from previous studies, it measures the moderating impact of DI perceived by tourists on decreasing the effect of perceived health risks on local travel intention in the UAE, Egypt, and Jordan. Thus, the seventh proposition is formed as:

DI moderates the effect between TPR and travel intention.

Research methods

This research uses the quantitative method to reveal deductive findings on the impact of TPR on the intention to travel locally for leisure across three countries: the UAE, Egypt, and Jordan. It also tests the moderating influence of DI on the causal relationships between TPR (i.e. psychological, financial, social, physical, performance and tourism-related) and local travel intention. A questionnaire has been randomly addressed to locals and residents of the UAE, Egypt and Jordan between January and April 2022. The questionnaire includes some questions about gender, age, education, and the number and purpose of local travels in the last year. It comprises a scale of 29 five-point Likert items to measure eight research constructs. Four items are adapted from previous research (i.e. Chiu et al., 2019; Perić et al., 2021) to measure psychological risks, and three items to measure financial risks (Arslan et al., 2013; Chiu et al., 2019; Neuburger and Egger, 2021; Perić et al., 2021), three items to measure social risks (Chiu et al., 2019; Perić et al., 2021), three items for physical risks (Arslan et al., 2013; Chiu et al., 2019), three for performance risks (Perić et al., 2021), three for tourism-related risks (Arslan et al., 2013), four for local travel intention (Arslan et al., 2013; Chiu et al., 2019), and six items to measure the general ‘safe to visit’ destination image (Chiu et al., 2019; Neuburger and Egger, 2021). The form is tested on 50 people and corrected item-total correlations show solid construct validity and reliability (Abou-Shouk et al., 2013).

For data collection, 405 questionnaires are gathered from the UAE, 425 from Egypt, and 390 from Jordan. To reveal findings from valid data, the authors used a filter question about the purpose of travel in the questionnaire to limit analysis to travel for leisure purposes only. Based on this question, as shown in Table 1, 95.4% of respondents travelled for leisure in the UAE the last year, 91.3% travelled within Egypt, and 96.9% travelled within Jordan. Therefore, excluding respondents with other travel purposes resulted in 386, 388, and 383 usable questionnaires from the UAE, Egypt and Jordan respectively fulfilling the suitable sample size of 384 responses (Abou-Shouk et al., 2021). PLS-SEM is employed to test research causal relationships using WarpPLS (8). The scale shows valid and reliable results (see Tables 2, 3, and 4).

Table 1.

Profile of research respondents.

		UAE (%)	Egypt (%)	Jordan (%)
Gender	Male	41.9	44.3	46.1
Gender	Female	58.1	55.7	53.9
Age	18–25	35.1	33.9	25.1
	26–35	37.2	41.8	37.7
	36–45	24.1	16.1	20.0
	46–55	2.5	6.1	11.4
	>55 years	1.1	2.1	5.8
Education	Secondary	20.3	7.5	15.5
	University	76.8	79.9	73.9
	Postgraduate	2.9	12.5	10.6
Travel locally in the last year	1–3 times	41.4	44.1	56.9
	4–6	19.0	32.7	12.5
	7–9	11.2	14.2	13.1
	10–12	5.7	3.7	2.2
	13–15	3.4	3.2	3.9
	>15 times	19.3	2.1	11.4
Purpose of travel	Leisure	95.4	91.3	96.9
Purpose of travel	Other	4.6	8.7	3.1

Table 2.

Measurement models.

Constructs	Indicators	UAE				Egypt				Jordan
Constructs	Indicators	Value	CR	CA	AVE	Value	CR	CA	AVE	Value	CR	CA	AVE
Psychological risk	I Will feel uncomfortable if I travel now for leisure	0.878	0.912	0.890	0.721	0.792	0.903	0.857	0.701	0.800	0.890	0.870	0.669
	It is risky currently to travel locally for leisure	0.801				0.874				0.836
	I am afraid to travel locally because COVID-19 is a dangerous disease	0.891				0.807				0.805
	I feel anxious to travel locally now for leisure	0.823				0.872				0.830
Financial risk	I fear if I travel currently, I will spend too much money	0.815	0.891	0.837	0.732	0.860	0.899	0.831	0.747	0.836	0.893	0.871	0.735
	I Worry that the trip will not be worth the value of the money spent	0.865				0.855				0.860
	I am worried to be overcharged for food and drinks because of COVID-19	0.886				0.878				0.875
Social risk	People important to me recommend me not to travel due to COVID-19	0.821	0.848	0.814	0.719	0.875	0.914	0.859	0.780	0.840	0.857	0.832	0.668
	If I travel now, I will be criticized by the people I value their opinions	0.843				0.869				0.750
	People I trust advise me not to travel locally now	0.878				0.905				0.857
Physical risk	I believe that local travel now will have detrimental effects on my health	0.855	0.894	0.811	0.738	0.914	0.947	0.917	0.857	0.747	0.833	0.821	0.625
	I am afraid if I travel locally now to suffer infections and diseases	0.819				0.920				0.759
	I believe that current local travel will expose me to health problems	0.901				0.944				0.860
Performance risk	I am afraid that attractions may temporarily shut down or restricted	0.909	0.879	0.831	0.807	0.871	0.910	0.852	0.772	0.855	0.861	0.843	0.674
	I am worried that my lodging facility will not be as nice as expected	0.821				0.902				0.821
	I am afraid that current local travel will not meet my expectations	0.790				0.863				0.786
Tourism-related risk	Tourism is responsible for the spread of COVID-19	0.890	0.881	0.827	0.712	0.841	0.897	0.827	0.743	0.815	0.825	0.813	0.612
	Staying in hotels is risky and could cause COVID-19 infections	0.815				0.885				0.725
	Travelling in organized groups could cause COVID-19 infections	0.824				0.861				0.803
Travel Behaviour	Currently, I plan to travel to local attractions	0.869	0.886	0.859	0.661	0.896	0.941	0.915	0.799	0.771	0.887	0.867	0.665
	Currently, I plan to travel for local trips	0.824				0.923				0.745
	Currently, I have plans to travel to domestic destinations	0.770				0.927				0.861
	Currently, I intend to attend big events	0.785				0.826				0.876
Destination image	The UAE has strict protection measures for travel locally	0.805	0.902	0.887	0.606	0.737	0.915	0.878	0.641	0.796	0.917	0.890	0.647
	The UAE has a variety of unique sanitized and safe attractions	0.746				0.789				0.808
	The UAE has appealing cleaned and safe local cuisine	0.762				0.843				0.821
	The UAE is rich with safe heritage sites	0.819				0.773				0.833
	The UAE is a good and safe place for shopping	0.753				0.831				0.757
	The UAE is a pleasant and safe place to visit	0.783				0.827				0.810

Table 3.

Inter-constructs correlations and square roots of AVE values.

		PR	FR	SR	PHR	PER	TR	TB	DI
Psychological risks (PR)	UAE	(0.849)	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
	Egypt	(0.837)	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
	Jordan	(0.818)	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
Financial risks (FR)	UAE	0.654	(0.856)	—	—	—	—	—	—
	Egypt	0.416	(0.865)	—	—	—	—	—	—
	Jordan	0.717	(0.857)	—	—	—	—	—	—
Social risks (SR)	UAE	0.634	0.691	(0.848)	—	—	—	—	—
	Egypt	0.542	0.436	(0.883)	—	—	—	—	—
	Jordan	0.710	0.667	(0.817)	—	—	—	—	—
Physical risks (PHR)	UAE	0.751	0.737	0.743	(0.859)	—	—	—	—
	Egypt	0.617	0.433	0.617	(0.926)	—	—	—	—
	Jordan	761	0.771	0.752	(0.791)	—	—	—	—
Performance risks (PER)	UAE	0.691	0.712	0.748	0.780	(0.898)	—	—	—
	Egypt	0.509	0.500	0.559	0.568	(0.879)	—	—	—
	Jordan	705	0.700	0.717	0.647	(0.821)	—	—	—
Tourism-related risks (TR)	UAE	0.616	0.636	0.692	0.734	0.814	(0.844)	—	—
	Egypt	0.525	0.452	0.538	0.590	0.686	(0.862)	—	—
	Jordan	0.718	0.635	0.713	0.712	0.739	(0.782)	—	—
Travel Behaviour (TB)	UAE	0.730	0.759	0.775	0.816	0.799	0.779	(0.813)	—
	Egypt	0.600	0.511	0.603	0.637	0.650	0.719	(0.894)	—
	Jordan	0.786	0.771	0.639	0.641	0.637	0.771	(0.815)	—
Destination image (DI)	UAE	0.672	0.691	0.608	0.661	0.671	0.664	0.696	(0.778)
	Egypt	0.313	0.460	0.364	0.454	0.445	0.375	0.328	(0.801)
	Jordan	0.486	0.462	0.453	0.419	0.487	0.476	0.430	(0.804)

Table 4.

HTMT ratios.

	PR	PR	FR	SR	PHR	PER	TR	TB
Financial risks (FR)	UAE	0.705	—	—	—	—	—	—
	Egypt	0.493	—	—	—	—	—	—
	Jordan	0.661	—	—	—	—	—	—
Social risks (SR)	UAE	0.691	0.747	—	—	—	—	—
	Egypt	0.631	0.516	—	—	—	—	—
	Jordan	0.674	0.721	—	—	—	—	—
Physical risks (PHR)	UAE	0.803	0.781	0.797	—	—	—	—
	Egypt	0.695	0.496	0.694	—	—	—	—
	Jordan	0.768	0.707	0.698	—	—	—	—
Performance risks (PER)	UAE	0.755	0.771	0.819	0.837	—	—	—
	Egypt	0.596	0.594	0.653	0.642	—	—	—
	Jordan	0.712	0.645	0.717	0.682	—	—	—
Tourism-related risks (TR)	UAE	0.683	0.698	0.767	0.799	0.820	—	—
	Egypt	0.624	0.545	0.638	0.677	0.816	—	—
	Jordan	0.658	0.697	0.697	0.686	0.808	—	—
Travel Behaviour (TB)	UAE	0.770	0.792	0.820	0.835	0.840	0.832	—
	Egypt	0.675	0.584	0.678	0.695	0.735	0.827	—
	Jordan	0.681	0.711	0.784	0.682	0.720	0.741	—
Destination image (DI)	UAE	0.677	0.695	0.614	0.664	0.675	0.679	0.680
	Egypt	0.339	0.482	0.383	0.468	0.462	0.399	0.346
	Jordan	0.512	0.506	0.475	0.439	0.511	0.530	0.452

Note: PR: Psychological Risks.

Findings

Descriptive statistics

Table 1 shows that female respondents exceed half of the samples of the UAE (58.1%), Egypt (55.7%), and Jordan (53.9%). The dominant age category in the three samples is (26–35 years), 37.2% of the UAE, 41.8% of Egypt, and 37.7% of the Jordan sample. The age category of 18-15 years comes next, with 35.1% for the UAE, 33.9% for Egypt, and 25.1% for Jordan. Most respondents in the three samples have a university education (76.8% for the UAE, 79.9% for Egypt, and 73.9% for Jordan). Secondary education and postgraduates are also present in the three samples. Most respondents reported that they travelled locally between one and three times in the last year (41.4% for the UAE, 44.1% for Egypt, and 56.9% for Jordan). However, 19%, 32.7%, and 12.5% have travelled between four and six times within the UAE, Egypt, and Jordan respectively. In addition, 11.2% of the UAE respondents, 14.2% of the Egyptian respondents, and 13.1% of the Jordanian respondents have travelled locally between seven and nine times in the last year. As for 10 times or more, 28.4% of the Emirati respondents, 9% of the Egyptian respondents, and 17.5% of the Jordanian respondents have travelled locally within their countries in the last year. Respondents mentioned that leisure purpose was one of the crucial reasons for their local travel (95.4% for the UAE, 91.3% for Egyptians, and 96.9% for Jordanians).

The measurement models

These models aim to measure the validity and reliability of the used scale. For the present study, Table 2 depicts that the factor loadings for the three samples (UAE, Egypt, and Jordan) exceed 0.7. AVE values surpass the recommended value of 0.5 implying the existence of convergent validity of the scale (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). Furthermore, the square root of AVEs is greater than the inter-construct correlations in the three samples (Table 3) showing evidence that discriminant validity is present. Table 4 confirms the existence of discriminant validity of the scale with HTMT values less than the threshold of 0.85 (Kock, 2022). Values greater than 0.7 of Cronbach’s alpha (CA) and composite reliability (CR) (Table 2) reflect the scale’s reliability. The average full collinearity index (AFVIF) is 3.1 for the UAE scale, 2.4 for Egypt, and 2.9 for Jordan and therefore multicollinearity issues are not a problem.

Structural models

These models measure the causal associations among the research constructs. Figure 1 shows that six subsets of perceived travel health risks are significantly and negatively affecting local travel intention among the UAE, Egyptian, and Jordanian respondents within their countries. It is revealed that local travel intention is negatively influenced by psychological risks (β = −0.15, p < 0.01 for the UAE, β = −0.17, p < 0.01 for Egypt, and β = −0.19, p < 0.01 for Jordan) and the first hypothesis is supported, and local travellers’ intention is negatively impacted by COVID-19 psychological risks. Financial risks also have negatively affected local travel intention (β = −0.18, p < 0.01 for the UAE, β = −0.11, p < 0.05 for Egypt, and β3 = −0.10, p < 0.05 for Jordan) and H2 is accepted. Furthermore, the local travel intention was found negatively affected by social risks in the three countries (UAE: β = −0.17, p < 0.01, Egypt: β = −0.13, p < 0.01, and Jordan: β = −0.11, p < 0.05) and H3 is also accepted. Physical risks have also negatively affected local travel intention in the three samples (UAE: β = −0.16, p < 0.01, Egypt: β = −0.14, p < 0.01, and Jordan: β = −0.15, p < 0.05) and H4 is supported. Performance risks are also of negative impact (UAE: β = −0.11, p < 0.01, Egypt: β = −0.10, p < 0.05, and Jordan: β = −0.16, p < 0.01) and H5 is accepted. Finally, tourism-related risks also of significant negative effect on local travel intention (UAE: β = −0.25, p < 0.01, Egypt: β = −0.39, p < 0.01, and Jordan: β = −0.34, p < 0.01) and H6 is supported. The six subsets of travel health risks (i.e., psychological, financial, social, physical, performance, and tourism-related risks) explain 56%, 68% and 74% of the variance of local travel intentions in the UAE, Egypt and Jordan respectively. These findings reflect the negative impact of travel perceived risks locally within destinations and prove that domestic tourism is also challenged by the health perceived risks.

Figure 1.

The effect of travel risks on local travel intention. Note: β₁ and R²_{1 =} UAE, β₂ and R²₂ = Egypt, β₃ and R²₃ = Jordan ^** = significant at 1%, ^* = significant at5%, and ^ns = not significant.

The moderating effect of destination image

Perceiving the destination generally as ‘safe to visit’ helps decrease the effect of travel risks on domestic travel intention. The findings revealed that DI has different effects based on each destination. As for the UAE destination, it is found that DI has a significant decreasing impact on the relationships between social risks and travel intention (β = −0.12, p < 0.01), physical risks and travel intention (β = −0.17, p < 0.01), performance risks and travel intention (β = −0.10, p < 0.05), and tourism-related risks and local travel intention (β = −0.15, p < 0.01). This decreasing impact reflects the perception of respondents of the UAE as a safe to visit destination. However, despite the perception of the country as a safe destination, this image does not have a significant decrease in the local tourists’ psychological (β = −0.02, p > 0.05), and financial risks (β = −0.04, p > 0.05).

In the case of Egypt and Jordan, perceiving the destination as ‘safe to travel within’ has significantly decreased respondents’ effect of social risks (β = −0.10, p < 0.05 for Egypt and β = −0.14, p < 0.01 for Jordan) and performance risks (β = −0.12, p < 0.01 for Egypt and β = −0.10, p < 0.05 for Jordan) on local travel intention. This finding reflects that Egyptian and Jordanian local travellers believe that travel for leisure could help spread COVID-19 infection and their perception of the safety of their destination does not decrease their perceptions of psychological, financial, physical, and leisure travel risks (Figure 1). These findings have the merit that the general image of destinations as ‘safe to visit during COVID-19’ could help refresh and revive local travel.

Discussion of findings

Destinations always use domestic tourism as a survival gateway for the tourism industry in crisis times, particularly health ones. Domestic travel plays an important role in refreshing tourism activities when international tourism has critical challenges to continue such as in the case of COVID-19 which causes international lockdowns. Tourists feel worried and anxious to travel during pandemics to avoid health problems including infections, diseases and physical hurts. Both international and local tourists share the same fear and anxiety when thinking about travel for leisure, particularly with health and physical risks. Where extant research focuses on international tourists’ perceptions, the present study investigates the effect of travel risks perceived by local travellers within the UAE, Egypt, and Jordan on their local travel intention for leisure purposes. It also measures the moderating effect of destination image (i.e. a safe-to-visit destination) and its ability to decrease travel risks. The following paragraphs discuss the outcome of TPR on local travel intentions and the moderating role of DI.

The effect of travel risks on local travel intention

The travel risks discussed in this study comprise five subsets: psychological, financial, social, physical, performance and tourism-related risks. The findings reveal that the five subsets of risks have negatively affected the travel intention of local tourists within the UAE, Egypt, and Jordan. Starting with the psychological risks, it reflects the tourists’ fear, worries, and anxiety of thinking to travel during the pandemic. They feel anxious to be infected if they travel to crowded places and events (i.e. parks, restaurants, beaches, shopping centres…etc.) and may be hurt. Findings show that respondents from the three countries have the same perceptions of fear and anxiety about travelling during health epidemics. They expressed their worries in terms of feeling uncomfortable if they travel for leisure during these hard times as this travel will be risky because of possible harm to their health and hence they avoid having any travel plans during these times. This finding is parallel to the results of Abou-Shouk et al. (2022) who found that locals and residents of the UAE and Egypt are afraid and worried to have any travel plans during COVID-19 and that psychological risks are negatively affecting their travel plans. It is also in line with the claim of Dryhurst et al. (2020) who described the psychological effects as mental and emotional states of tourists pushed by their previous experience or the media that form their fear and negatively affecting their travel plans.

The second type of risk that affects travel plans is financial risk. These risks imply the worries of respondents to spend more to comply with destination precautions. Findings reveal that there is a belief among the UAE, Egypt and Jordan respondents that they will spend too much money if they travel during the COVID-19 crisis to have safe and clean services, in addition to their negative perception that trips will not fulfil their expectations and value for money. Furthermore, they are worried that getting safe food and drinks while travelling locally will overcharge them because of the precautions taken by service providers to present safe and clean meals and drinks with strict place capacity concerns. These perceptions affect local tourists’ intention to travel or at least decrease their number of travels within their countries (i.e. UAE or Egypt or Jordan). This conclusion is concurrent with Perić et al. (2021) and Chiu et al. (2019) who revealed that financial risks lower the demand for tourism.

The third type of risk perceived by respondents is a social risk. These risks imply the perceptions of social environment close contacts who would criticize any intention to travel during COVID-19. Those trusty people would advise others not to travel for leisure during the pandemic and recommend avoiding COVID-19 health impacts while travelling. Social risks have revealed a negative impact on domestic travel intention within the three countries. These risks are also supported by the media and information searched online or offered on social media warning travellers of the serious health impacts of the pandemic. This outcome is consistent with Arslan et al. (2013) who found that social risks lead to negative recommendations for travel during health crises.

Furthermore, physical risks are among the significant determinants of travel intention. These risks are the most serious risks among others. It includes the belief of travellers have detrimental effects on their health including hurt, infections, and diseases that may lead to death. Local tourists would be afraid to travel during health crises and suffer consequent infections and diseases from that travel. Respondents think that travelling during these times could be a direct exposure to health problems and therefore they would avoid any current travel plans. This finding is in accordance with Chiu et al. (2019) who found that physical risks constitute a significant predictor of travel avoidance, and the current study found that the respondents of the three countries share the same perceptions regarding the physical risks and their effects on travel decisions during the pandemic.

The fifth type of risk is the performance risk. Findings reported that respondents would avoid any travel plans locally during COVID-19 because they believe that attractions would not work at full capacity or are closed or restricted due to the pandemic. In addition, they are worried that travel services and lodging facilities would not meet their expectations due to strict precautions and safety concerns. These risks have significantly affected the local travel intention in the UAE, Egypt and Jordan. Add to this, the effect of performance risks may lead to determining the demand for tourist services. This conclusion is comparable with Chiu et al. (2019) who revealed that performance risks decrease travel intention during crises, and Angguni and Lenggogeni (2021), Meng et al. (2021), and Neuburger and Egger (2021) who found that performance risks decrease the potential demand for tourism.

The last and most critical category of risks is linked to tourism-related risks. These risks are critical for tourism activities as respondents think that tourism would help spread disease and infection levels among travellers. Respondents think that tourism activities are the main cause of Coronavirus spread. They think that travelling and staying in hotels are not safe and would be infectious, and that travel within organised groups could cause direct COVID-19 infections therefore they try to avoid travel and tourism activities that could harm their health and cause determinable medical problems. These risks revealed a large size significant negative effect on local tourists’ intentions to travel locally for tourism and leisure activities in the three research settings (i.e. Egypt, Jordan, and UAE respectively). This finding is similar to Neuburger and Egger (2021) who found that this type of risk is linked to tourism activities in particular and tourists would consider tourism as a responsible medium to spread COVID-19 infections. This type of risk has a critical influence on tourism demand and needs destination marketers to focus their marketing efforts on the strict protection measures taken for local travel and tourism service providers and attractions within destinations.

The moderating effect of destination image

One of the important factors that may encourage tourists to travel safely is to market the destination as safe to travel by announcing the strict protection measures taken to protect tourists. Having a general image of the destination as ‘safe to visit’ during the pandemic means that the destination has taken serious protection measures to keep tourists safe from healthy concerns. These measures are adopted by all service providers in a way it assures that visitors are safe in airports, attractions, shopping centres, food and drinks provision, museums, parks, hotels, and other local tourism destinations. When destinations pay attention to these measures to market an image of a green zone safe to visit destination, this image will encourage local and international tourists to travel for leisure. The UAE has taken strict measures to protect locals and residents, early started delivering vaccination to all citizens and residents and applied social distancing procedures everywhere to help decrease the infections of COVID-19. Egypt and Jordan have also applied social distance and some protection measures but not at the same level of strictness and comprehensiveness as the UAE despite the focus on vaccinating their populations strictly the last year. Therefore, looking at the findings of the current study, it is found that the UAE’s general image as a ‘safe to visit’ destination has encouraged local tourists to travel for leisure. This positive image of the UAE helped decrease the effect of physical and psychological risks including the fear and worries of local tourists to travel to avoid any determinant risks to their health. Unlikely, Egypt and Jordan, the image of a ‘safe’ destination did not significantly decrease these physical risks among local tourists. Furthermore, the image of the UAE destination help local tourists to transcend the fear and worries of tourism and leisure travel as the main sources of COVID-19 infections and health problems. Unlike the UAE, Egypt and Jordan, their image did not help decrease the effect of leisure travel risks. However, the image of the three countries helped decrease the effect of performance risks on local travel intention. The three countries’ tourism and hospitality service providers are available and adopt fair protection measures to keep local tourists safe. This includes hotels, shopping centres, restaurants, and other major tourist attractions in the three countries. In addition, findings revealed that the image of the three countries (i.e. UAE, Egypt and Jordan) helped decrease the effect of social risks on local tourist travel intention. The social risks are vital for many people who trust their social environment and trusty persons (leaders, family, friends, relatives…etc.). Decreasing the effect of social risks is a good forward step for these countries so that they are ready to receive tourists without fear and worries about the pandemic consequences. The moderating effect of destination image has shown that local tourists would feel more confident to travel locally without fear and anxiety. This finding is similar to Abou-Shouk et al. (2022) who classified the protection measures taken by tourist destinations (as a moderator) into high, moderate and low levels and found that the level of protection measures taken by destinations (i.e., strict measures, moderate, or low) decreases the locals’ feelings of fear and worries to travel within the COVID-19 pandemic in the UAE and Egypt.

Conclusion and implications

Domestic tourism plays an important role in rescuing tourism activities during crises. Destinations encourage local travellers to travel to compensate for the decrease in international arrivals. As this is the situation during health crises (i.e. COVID-19), this study aimed to measure the effect of travel health risks (i.e. COVID-19) on local tourists’ intentions to travel locally within the UAE, Egypt, and Jordan. It also aimed to explore the moderating effect of DI on the relationships between travel perceived risks and local travel intentions. Findings showed that TPR (psychological, financial, social, physical, performance, and leisure travel risks) have negatively influenced the intention of local travellers within the UAE, Egypt, and Jordan. It is also revealed that DI of the UAE has partially moderated the causal relationships between TPR and travel intention and helped decrease the effect of social, physical, performance and tourism-related risks on domestic travel intention. For Egypt and Jordan, the destination image has shown a significant effect of decreasing social and performance risks only on travel intention.

The findings have contributed to both knowledge and practice. As for the contribution to theory, this study aimed at measuring the impact of travel health risks (i.e. COVID-19) on domestic travel intention. As most of the recent research has focused on measuring the effect of COVID-19 on international tourism, this analysis adds to the knowledge of domestic tourism and its survival and perceptions of local tourists towards local travel plans. In addition, the study has tested the research model in a multi-country context: the UAE, Egypt, and Jordan. The results uncovered that travel risks have also affected local travel intentions in the three countries. Furthermore, the study measured the moderating effect of destination image on the relationships between travel risks and travel intention and this has contributed to improving the explanatory power of the research model and helped interpret the effect of both health risks and safe destination image on travel intentions locally which is an indicator to quick recovery to international tourism.

As for managerial implications, the outcomes of this research have underlined the role of a ‘safe to visit’ general destination image and how this image could help destinations to decrease the impact of risks brought by COVID-19 on local travel intention. Marketing the destination as a green zone to travel within will help local tourists to be confident and plan their travel without fear and worry about their health matters. Destinations should focus on domestic tourism as a gateway to attract international arrivals after that. Destination management should pay attention to adopted protection measures and destination marketers should highlight these efforts to present their destinations as a safe zone for travel. They should link the positive image of a destination with decreased travel risks to help position their destinations and travel activities. Promotion campaigns should focus on the ‘safe to visit’ destination image and provide sufficient updated information on travel risks and protection measures taken at the destination. One good example of the UAE is organising the Expo Dubai 2020 through which, destination marketers have marketed their destination as a safe travel zone. They marketed the wide use of technology in providing services in the destination (i.e. robots in the expo) and have strictly adopted the protection measures that maintain tourists’ safety. Tourist events (expos, conferences, fairs, and local events) could also help marketers to introduce their safe destination to tourists with a focus on the protection measures taken.

A further managerial implication of this study is the need to consider and focus on local tourists’ safety and strategies to engage local tourists to plan their travel without fearing the effect of physical risks on their health. As presented earlier in this study, the UNWTO (2020) reported that the domestic tourism ratio to the international market is 6:1. In addition, using the local tourists’ experiences and image of their safe country will help resume tourism activities locally and internationally. Travel and tourism service providers have to play their roles and highlight the good and safe experiences of their tourists and guests to improve the image of their destination through their marketing channels on and offline.

Limitations and future research

This study has only focused on travel risks caused by COVID-19 and how these risks could affect local travel intention. Many factors in previous studies handled predictors of travel intentions which can be used to advance the research model adopted in the present study. In addition, the destination image variable used in the study has been limited to the general safe-to-visit context only and can be expanded to improve its moderating effects in future research. The study is also limited to developing countries and comparative studies between developed and developing countries could provide new insights to restart tourism safely.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Mohamed Abou-Shouk

Author Biographies

Asad Aburumman holds a PhD in Marketing for Tourism and Hospitality from the University of Mosul, Iraq. He is currently an Associate Professor at the College of Arts, Humanities, and Social Sciences, University of Sharjah, UAE. His research interests are service quality, tourism marketing, hospitality management, and international tourism.

Mohamed Abou-Shouk holds a PhD in Tourism and Hospitality from Plymouth University, UK. He is currently an Associate Professor at the College of Arts, Humanities, and Social Sciences, University of Sharjah, UAE. His research interests are technology adoption behaviour in tourism and hospitality SMEs, e-tourism, e-commerce and e-marketing in tourism and hospitality, entrepreneurship in tourism and hospitality, and structural equation modelling-based quantitative research in tourism.

Nagwa Zouair holds a PhD in Language, History, and Civilizations of the Ancient World from Université Lumière Lyon II, France. She is currently a professor at the Faculty of Tourism and Hotels, Fayoum University, Egypt. Her research interests are quality assurance, entrepreneurship, tourism guidance, heritage management, and the history of the ancient world.

Marwa Abdel-Jalil holds a PhD in Tourism and Hospitality from Fayoum University, Egypt. She is currently a lecturer at the Department of Tourism Studies, Faculty of Tourism and Hotels, Fayoum University, Egypt. Her research interests are entrepreneurship in tourism and hospitality, tourism investment, management of SMEs, human resource development, and business management.

References

Abou-Shouk

Elbaz

Maher

(2021) Breaking the silence of travel agency employees: the moderating role of gender. Tourism and Hospitality Research 21: 487–500.

Abou-Shouk

Zoair

Abulenein

(2022) How ready are customers to re-travel for tourism? Insights from the UAE and Egypt. GeoJournal of Tourism and Geosites 40: 175–180.

Abou-Shouk

Lim

Megicks

(2013) E-commerce and small tourism businesses in developing countries: drivers versus boundaries of adoption. Tourism Planning and Development 10: 249–266.

Abraham

Bremser

Carreno

, et al. (2021) Exploring the consequences of COVID-19 on tourist behaviors: perceived travel risk, animosity and intentions to travel. Tourism Review 76: 701–717.

Angguni

Lenggogeni

(2021) The impact of travel risk perception in covid 19 and travel anxiety toward travel intention on domestic tourist in Indonesia. Jurnal Ilmiah MEA (Manajemen, Ekonomi, and Akuntansi) 5: 241–259.

Arbulú

Razumova

Rey-Maquieira

, et al. (2021) Can domestic tourism relieve the COVID-19 tourist industry crisis? In the case of Spain. Journal of Destination Marketing and Management 20: 100568.

Arslan

Geçti

Zengin

(2013) Examining perceived risk and its influence on attitudes: a study on private label consumers in Turkey. Asian Social Science 9: 158–166.

Bae

Chang

(2021) The effect of coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) risk perception on behavioural intention towards ‘untact’ tourism in South Korea during the first wave of the pandemic (March 2020). Current Issues in Tourism 24: 1017–1035.

Chan

(2021) Domestic tourism as a pathway to revive the tourism industry and business post the COVID-19 pandemic. ERIA Discussion Paper Series 392: 1–35.

10.

Chaulagain

Wiitala

(2019) The impact of country image and destination image on US tourists’ travel intention. Journal of Destination Marketing and Management 12: 1–11.

11.

Cheron

Ritchie

(1982) Leisure activities and perceived risk. Journal of Leisure Research 14: 139–154.

12.

Chew

Jahari

(2014) Destination image as a mediator between perceived risks and revisit intention: a case of post-disaster Japan. Tourism Management 40: 382–393.

13.

Chiu

Ting

Alananzeh

, et al. (2019) Perceptions of risk and outbound tourism travel intentions among young working Malaysians. Dirasat, Human and Social Sciences 46: 365–379.

14.

Cho

S-H

Ali

Manhas

(2018) Examining the impact of risk perceptions on intentions to travel by air: a comparison of full-service carriers and low-cost carriers. Journal of Air Transport Management 71: 20–27.

15.

Cui

Liu

Chang

, et al. (2016) An overview of tourism risk perception. Natural Hazards 82: 643–658.

16.

Ding

(2022) Influence of tourism safety perception on destination image: a case study of Xinjiang, China. Sustainability 14: 1663.

17.

Dryhurst

Schneider

Kerr

, et al. (2020) Risk perceptions of COVID-19 around the world. Journal of Risk Research 23: 994–1006.

18.

Fornell

Larcker

(1981) Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research 18: 39–50.

19.

Gössling

Scott

Hall

(2021) Pandemics, tourism and global change: a rapid assessment of COVID-19. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 29: 1–20.

20.

Hamouda

Yacoub

(2018) Explaining visit intention involving eWOM, perceived risk motivations and destination image. International Journal of Leisure and Tourism Marketing 6: 65–82.

21.

Jahari

Yang

Juliana

Angeline

, et al. (2023) COVID-19 and beyond: understanding travel risk perception as a process. Tourism Recreation Research 48: 449–464.

22.

Jiang

Qin

Gao

, et al. (2022) The mediation of perceived risk’s impact on destination image and travel intention: an empirical study of Chengdu, China during COVID-19. PloS One 17: e0261851.

23.

Jonas

Mansfeld

Paz

, et al. (2010) Determinants of health risk perception among low-risk-taking tourists traveling to developing countries. Journal of Travel Research 50: 87–99.

24.

Khan

Adil

Alkhathlan

, et al. (2020) COVID-19: a global challenge with old history, epidemiology and progress so far. Molecules 26: 39.

25.

Khan

Chelliah

Khan

, et al. (2019) Perceived risks, travel constraints and visit intention of young women travelers: the moderating role of travel motivation. Tourism Review 74: 721–738.

26.

Kock

(2022) WarpPLS User Manual 8.0. Laredo, TX: Script Warp Systems.

27.

Kour

Gupta

(2019) Analysis of travel risk perception and travel intentions among solo female travellers Towards Kashmir as a destination. International Journal of Research in Commerce and Management 10: 14–16.

28.

Kuang

Ashraf

Das

, et al. (2020) Awareness, risk perception, and stress during the COVID-19 pandemic in communities of Tamil Nadu, India. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17: 7177.

29.

H-Y

(2021) An investigation of factors influencing the risk perception and revisit willingness of seniors. Asia Pacific Management Review 26: 160–170.

30.

Luo

Lam

(2020) Travel anxiety, risk attitude and travel intentions towards “travel bubble” destinations in Hong Kong: effect of the fear of COVID-19. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17: 7859.

31.

Magano

Vidal

Sousa

, et al. (2021) Psychological factors explaining perceived impact of COVID-19 on travel. European Journal of Investigation in Health, Psychology and Education 11: 1120–1133.

32.

Martín-Azami

Ramos-Real

(2019) The importance of perceived risk in destination image and its effects on behavioral intention. PASOS. Revista de Turismo y Patrimonio Cultural 17: 915–928.

33.

Meng

Khan

Bibi

, et al. (2021) The effects of COVID-19 risk perception on travel intention: evidence from Chinese travelers. Front Psychol 12: 655860.

34.

Nazir

Yasin

Tat

(2021) Destination image’s mediating role between perceived risks, perceived constraints, and behavioral intention. Heliyon 7: e07613.

35.

Neuburger

Egger

(2021) Travel risk perception and travel behaviour during the COVID-19 pandemic 2020: a case study of the DACH region. Current Issues in Tourism 24: 1003–1016.

36.

Nguyen Viet

Dang

Nguyen

(2020) Revisit intention and satisfaction: the role of destination image, perceived risk, and cultural contact. Cogent Business and Management 7: 1796249.

37.

Perić

Dramićanin

Conić

(2021) The impact of Serbian tourists’ risk perception on their travel intentions during the COVID-19 pandemic. European Journal of Tourism Research 27: 2705–2727.

38.

Rahman

Gazi

Bhuiyan

, et al. (2021) Effect of Covid-19 pandemic on tourist travel risk and management perceptions. PloS One 16: e0256486.

39.

Ruan

Liu

(2017) Measuring tourism risk impacts on destination image. Sustainability 9: 1501–1516.

40.

Simpson

Siguaw

(2008) Perceived travel risks: the traveller perspective and manageability. International Journal of Tourism Research 10: 315–327.

41.

Sönmez

Graefe

(1998) Determining future travel behavior from past travel experience and perceptions of risk and safety. Journal of Travel Research 37: 171–177.

42.

Stylidis

Cherifi

(2018) Characteristics of destination image: visitors and non-visitors’ images of London. Tourism Review 73: 55–67.

43.

UNWTO (2020) Understanding domestic tourism and seizing its opportunities-UNWTO briefing note-tourism and COVID-19, Issue 3: UNWTO. https://www.e-unwto.org/doi/epdf/10.18111/9789284422111.

44.

UNWTO (2008) Glossary of tourism terms. Available at: https://www.unwto.org/glossary-tourism-terms.

45.

Volgger

Taplin

Aebli

(2021) Recovery of domestic tourism during the COVID-19 pandemic: an experimental comparison of interventions. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 48: 428–440.

46.

Yang

Khoo-Lattimore

Arcodia

(2017) A systematic literature review of risk and gender research in tourism. Tourism Management 58: 89–100.

47.

Zhang

Buhalis

(2018) A model of perceived image, memorable tourism experiences and revisit intention. Journal of Destination Marketing and Management 8: 326–336.