Determining Future Travel Behavior From Past Travel Experience and Perceptions of Risk and Safety

Diana Martín-Azami dimartin@ull.es

Universidad de La Laguna, España

Francisco Javier Ramos-Real frramos@ull.es

Universidad de La Laguna, España

The importance of perceived risk in destination image and its effects on behavioral intention

PASOS. Revista de Turismo y Patrimonio Cultural , vol. 17, no. 5, pp. 915-928, 2019

Universidad de La Laguna

Received: 24 January 2018

Accustomed: 09 April 2019

Abstract: In this piece of work nosotros analyze the process by which the decision of visiting a destination is the result of evaluating its paradigm, being risk an important factor that has an issue on the destination'southward paradigm. Taking the previous literature into account, and considering the multidimensional grapheme of these two constructs, we propose a classification of the different approaches that link risk and image with behavioral intention. This work, without existence an exhaustive review of the literature, clarifies the state in which the study of this subject is found and gives guidance to the researchers in this field.

Keywords: Perceived risk, Perceived destination image, Tourist behavioral intention.

Resumen: En este trabajo analizamos el proceso mediante el cual la decisión de visitar un destino es el resultado de evaluar su imagen, siendo el riesgo un factor importante que influye en la imagen del destino. Teniendo en cuenta la literatura previa, y considerando el carácter multidimensional de estos dos constructos, proponemos una clasificación de los diferentes enfoques que vinculan el riesgo y la imagen con la intención del comportamiento. Este trabajo, sin ser una revisión exhaustiva de la literatura, aclara el estado en el que se encuentra el estudio de este tema y brinda orientación a los investigadores en este campo.

Palabras clave: Riesgo percibido, Imagen percibida del destino, Intención del turista.

1. Introduction

International tourism is facing a troubled and hostile period, notable for numerous incidents such as the 9/eleven attacks in 2001 in the United States (11S), the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) in 2003, the Katrina hurricane in 2005, and more recently, the attacks in Barcelona (2017), to proper name a few. These events spread around the world in no time in the historic period of data and communication technology. Such dramatic events, as many authors bespeak out, can cause a negative bear upon on the prototype of tourist destinations (Alvarez & Campo, 2014; Huang, Tseng & Yiap, 2013) resulting in a drastic drib in the number of visits.

Every bit Gartner (1994) points out, news broadcasts have a meaning influence on the development of a destination'southward image. The broadcasting of information on political instability, natural disasters or other threats to a destination contributes to its paradigm germination thus producing furnishings on the tourist'due south behavior (Law, 2006; Kozak, Crotts, & Police, 2007). People tend to avoid those places considered dangerous while peace, repose and safety are prerequisites to attract visitors (Sönmez, 1998). In other words, the decision of visiting a destination is the result of evaluating its image, being gamble an important factor that has an outcome precisely on the destination's prototype.

At that place are many works in the literature that analyze the relation between take chances and behavior intention (Yang & Nair, 2015), and betwixt destination image and the latter (Chon, 1990; Pike, 2002). Perpiña, Camprubí and Prats (2017) signal out that destination paradigm is not the only variable that determines the tourist's choice, emphasizing the influence of perceived take a chance. The authors highlight that "prominent scholars support the call to interrelate risk perception and destination image literature" in order to do good both theory and do within the field of tourist selection (Chew & Jahari, 2014; Lepp, Gibson, & Lane, 2011; Qi, Gibson, & Zhang, 2009; Sönmez, 1998)" (p.two). Moreover, the identification of risk factors contributes to a better agreement of the destination's image and makes information technology possible to empathize its touch on the tourist's behavior" (Hamouda & Yacoub, 2018: 69).

Ruan, Li and Liu (2017) suggest that when tourists consider the perceived risk in the decision to visit a destination, it becomes a determinant of its image. Perceived run a risk and destination image are multidi‑ mensional concepts. The use of theoretical and empirical models to explain the interrelations between the components of both constructs is key to understanding the destination image formation process and tourist behavior. In summary, the capacity of a model to explain behavioral intention increases when interrelating perceived chance and destination prototype. As well, the results of the studies that integrate hazard and image permit obtaining vital information to manage tourist destinations and manage their crises.

Bearing this in listen, the aim of this paper is to analyse the influence of risk on destination prototype then that a nomenclature of the different approaches that link these 2 constructs with behavioral intention can be proposed. Starting from this assay, and taking the dimensions that make up adventure and epitome into consideration, we place three approaches: isolated, intrinsic and integrative. The latter is based on the recognition of the participation of hazard in the destination image germination process. Although it offers more data to explain the selection of a destination, at that place are few works based on this approach. Therefore, a development of this interesting field of research is awaiting. The usefulness of this piece of work is twofold. Firstly, without beingness an exhaustive review of the literature, it clarifies the electric current state of the study of this subject. Second, it gives guidance on the direction of the efforts to be made by the researchers in this field. What is more, this information can be of great use for marketers and policy makers in the management of tourist destinations.

In this article, the concepts of perceived run a risk and destination image will be analysed through different contributions from the literature. Similarly, the style in which different studies decide the dimensions that brand upward both concepts besides equally the interrelations between them will also be analysed. This review will be the foundation upon which our new classification system will exist built. This work is structured as follows. Start, the notions of perceived risk and destination epitome volition be analysed. In item, we volition focus on the participation of run a risk in the destination prototype germination procedure. Because contributions from the literature, a nomenclature of the different approaches that link these constructs with behavioral intention will be proposed. Finally, the conclusions of the study will be established.

2. Perceived risk in tourism

The way in which adventure is conceptualized and measured in tourism has been nourished from previous contributions in the marketing field. Virtually works deal with perceived risk rather than actual risk because, regardless of the existence or non‑existence of an bodily risk (objective) and its magnitude, consumers are preoccupied with the risk they are able to perceive. Bauer (1960) defines, for the first time in the marketing field, the concept of perceived take chances as the consumer's perception of the consequences derived from his actions which cannot exist foreseen with certainty, and some of which are likely to exist unpleasant.

With time, this seminal definition has been reviewed. Thus, perceived risk is usually defined in terms of the consumers' perceptions most uncertainty and the magnitude of possible unfavorable consequences when purchasing a product or service (Dowling & Staelin, 1994). The cess of take chances intensity will have diff effects on the consumer'due south beliefs. Thus, risk will be tolerable as long as both the level of uncertainty and the probability of a negative result in the purchase are low (Ross, 1975). However, if the perception of danger goes beyond an adequate threshold, consumers will feel vulnerable and, consequently, will be dissuaded from their intention of buying. Risk is, therefore, avoidable in many cases. In the case of tourism, a serial of specifications must be borne in mind. The complex nature of the tourist production (intangible, heterogeneous, inseparable and perishable) makes it unable to exist experienced until after its purchase (Fakeye & Crompton, 1991), thus often just competing via images (Expressway & Ryan, 2004). These unique features, in addition to the high cost of holiday travels (both in economic and fourth dimension terms), brand the tourist experience a risk in itself (Gitelson & Crompton, 1983). In the tourism field there is also a preponderance of works dealing with perceived risk rather than actual run a risk (Quintal, Lee & Soutar, 2010). Once to this point, perceived risk in tourism can be defined as "a consumer's [tourist's] perception of the overall negativity of a class of action based upon an cess of the possible negative outcomes and the likelihood that those outcomes will occur" (Mowen & Modest, 1998: 176).

Co-ordinate to this notion, the tourist evaluates the possibility of an activeness, exposing himself to misfortune, threats, losses, or a lack of safe in the procedure of travelling or at a destination (Reisinger & Mavondo, 2005; Sönmez & Graefe, 1998a; Tsaur, Tzeng, & Wang, 1997).

Risk dimensions

The identification of the risk dimensions is a key job in the definition of the construct. It is as well essential in club for destination managers to guide the formulation of strategies, as information technology makes information technology possible to recognize the types of adventure which business concern tourists the almost. Research on consumer general behavior has left a mark again on tourism in a way that adventure dimensions have adjusted to the tourist experience. In this sense, based on the marketing literature, upwardly to seven theoretical dimensions of risk (Cheron & Ritchie, 1982; Jacoby & Kaplan, 1972; Kaplan, Szybillo, & Jacoby, 1974; Roselius, 1971; Ross, 1975; Schiffman & Kanuk, 1991; Rock & Grønhaug, 1993) are identified in tourism, divers every bit the tourist preoccupation because the product (service, destination, activity, etc.) might: (1) non accept a good quality/price ratio (financial chance), (ii) non be equally practiced as expected (functional risk), (3) harm your wellness (physical run a risk), (4) impairment your self‑esteem (psychological risk), (v) exist disapproved past reference groups (social adventure), (half-dozen) not be satisfying (satisfaction take a chance) and (7) mean a waste of time (fourth dimension risk).

Roehl and Fesenmaier (1992) use this theoretical nomenclature of risk dimensions in the empirical study of tourist hazard perceptions in pleasure travels. Their work confirms that tourists perceive different risks co-ordinate to the place and the miracle of study, which hinders the generalization of results from ane destination to another. For this reason, the authors propose near the utilization of measures that are advisable to the context of interest and related to the research. Still, their piece of work has been criticized due to each theoretical dimension of adventure being assessed with just one question, thus existence unable to collect the aamplitude of the concept. Other proposals overcome this pitfall by measuring perceived hazard using multi‑aspect scales, where each gamble dimension consists of several questions (Fuchs & Reichel, 2006).

The adaptation of the theoretical dimensions to each destination and co-ordinate to the object of study has become patently clear in numerous pieces of empirical enquiry. Below, we mention only some examples of risk dimensions and/or attributes included in response to the necessity of adapting scales in different studies: political instability (Sönmez & Graefe, 1998a, 1998b); hygiene (Maser & Weiermair, 1998); political/ religious dogmas (Lepp & Gibson, 2003); criminal offence (Floyd, Gibson, Pennington‑Gray & Thapa, 2004); terrorism (Reisinger & Mavondo, 2005); ecology (Dolnicar, 2005); induced by man (Fuchs & Reichel, 2006, 2011); overcrowding (Reichel, Fuchs, & Uriely, 2007); infectious diseases (Kozak et al., 2007); transportation performance (Simpson & Siguaw, 2008); violence (Qi, Gibson & Zhang, 2009); deterioration of tourist attractions (Rittichainuwat & Chakraborty, 2009); mass (Fuchs, 2013) or, expectations (Adam, 2015).

iii. Perceived destination epitome

The image of a destination is a mental representation of such destination (even if information technology has not been visited and/or exposed to commercial information), which is created from its assessment (Echtner & Ritchie, 1991). Past understanding this concept, the formulation and implementation of strategies to ameliorate the paradigm of the destination volition be easier for marketers and decision makers.

As happens with the notion of perceived run a risk, the use of the term perceived paradigm is more widespread, every bit each individual creates his own image of the destination. There is no understanding when it comes to conceptualizing the image of a tourist destination (Gartner, 1994). According to how information technology is defined, from one to three dimensions or components can exist identified: cerebral, affective and conative which, in this guild, receive a higher to lower theoretical support. The recognition of different destination image dimensions, overshadowing the idea of the existence of a single global image, allows the introduction of more than effective promotional strategies (Ahmed, 1996).

Image dimensions

The majority of inquiry has focused on the cognitive dimension when explaining the concept of destination image. Co-ordinate to this dimension, image consists of a set of impressions, perceptions, ideas, beliefs, knowledge or subjective interpretation regarding the characteristics or attributes of the destination (Bigné, Sánchez, & Sánchez, 2001; Crompton, 1979; Hui & Wan, 2003; Chase, 1975). With respect to the melancholia dimension, there is an upwards trend in its inclusion as a component of destination prototype. This dimension refers to the feelings or emotions evoked by the destination (Baloglu & Brinberg, 1997; Beerli & Martín, 2004a; Chon, 1990; Xu, Chan, & Pratt, 2017; Zhang, Fu, Cai & Lu, 2014).

Lastly, the conative dimension is linked to the predisposition to action, intention, will, or probability of initiating an action (Agapito, Oom Exercise Valle & da Costa Mendes, 2013; Dann, 1996; Gartner, 1994; Pike & Ryan, 2004; Stylos, Vassiliadis, Bellou & Andronikidis, 2017). This dimension takes place after the assessment (positive or negative) of the cognitive and affective dimensions, and can be materialized into action, or non. The incorporation of the conative dimension as a facet of destination epitome is more recent and, in fact, less recognized. Post-obit Pike & Ryan (2004) "The conative image is analogous to behavior since information technology is the intent or action component [...] Conation may be considered as the likelihood of visiting a destination within a certain time flow" (p.334). It is more usually used every bit an independent construct named behavioral intention (Bigné et al., 2001; Chen & Tsai, 2007; Prayag, 2009; Wang & Hsu, 2010) rather than an integral dimension of perceived image.

Although there are few studies on the weight of the melancholia dimension on destination image, and the relation between the cerebral and affective dimensions (San Martín & Rodríguez del Bosque, 2008), Baloglu and McCleary (1999) establish that the coexistence of both dimensions determines the global paradigm of a destination. The authors develop a model (widely accepted) of destination image formation that reflects this relation. In a context of urban destinations, Olague, Flores & Garza (2017) find evidence that the cerebral dimension precedes the affective dimension.

With regard to the measurement of perceived image, the preference for scales observed in empirical works is as follows. On the i hand, the melancholia dimension is mostly measured by using the semantic differential calibration by Russell and Pratt (1980), in which the following emotions are compared: arousing/sleepy, pleasant/unpleasant, deplorable/relaxing, and exciting/gloomy. On the other mitt, regarding the measurement of the cognitive dimension, the employ of Likert‑type scales is common practice, where the tourist shows his caste of understanding with a serial of statements near the attributes of the destination, such as climate, price, adaptation, gastronomy, etc. (Gallarza, Saura, & García, 2002).¹ Measurement scales vary from one piece of work to another in the same way equally happens with hazard, due to the necessity of adapting both to destination and the purpose of the study.

4. Perceived gamble in destination image germination process

We have previously highlighted that when tourists take perceived gamble into account in their choice, aspects such every bit criminal offense, strikes in the sector or political instability (among others) contribute to form an image of the destination. But, how does this process of image germination take identify? To understand the relation between take chances and prototype, it is necessary to explain the mode in which risk participates in the destination image formation procedure. This process constitutes i of the primary focal points in the study of prototype, as it means the recognition of the different factors that condition destination image (Gartner, 1989). The identification of these factors and the understanding of their influence favor the effectiveness of the efforts to create an attractive epitome (Fakeye & Crompton, 1991). The destination image formation procedure is represented in effigy 1.

Figure 1:
Destination prototype formation process
Source: Own elaboration based on literature

Image germination factors can be classified into two categories, personal (socio‑demographic and psychological), and stimulus (sources of information including experience). Perceptions of image are internalized through the personal factors (Beerli & Martín, 2004b). Hence the fact that image is a relative or subjective construction, that is, different for each individual, unique or personal (Gallarza et al., 2002). On the other hand, stimulus factors converge in the image formation process through a series of stages causing, in a sequential order, three types of images: organic, induced and complex (Fakeye & Crompton, 1991; Gunn, 1988). First, the organic image is formed from non‑commercial sources of communication (opinions of friends and relatives, books, films, news in the media, etc.). Then, the induced prototype is formed via boosted data of a promotional nature (travel guides, brochures, travel agents, tour operators, etc.). Finally, if the destination is visited, experience will constitute the circuitous epitome.

Regarding the importance and weight of prototype formation factors, clear differences are found. Induced image formation factors take little credibility, but they are essential in order to give renown to a destination (Woodside & Lysonsky, 1989), especially if it has non notwithstanding been visited. On the other hand, organic paradigm formation factors give legitimacy to the data, thus having more than credibility and also beingness the nigh utilized sources (Gitelson & Crompton, 1983). When the source of information is based on experience, a more than realistic (Gartner & Hunt, 1987) and differentiated image is formed in comparing with that of those who take not still visited the destination (Milman & Pizam, 1995).

Co-ordinate to the destination image formation process described above, perceived hazard participates in such process equally a stimulus cistron. Normally, the main sources of information most threats to destinations are news being broadcast by the media. Gartner (1994) mentions the impact of these sources on image germination due to their significance, considering them democratic paradigm formation agents implicit in the organic image (see figure i). In the writer's own words, Generally destination area promoters accept no command over what appears in a news story and the projected paradigm is based on someone else's interpretation for what is happening in the area. News reporting, because of its supposedly unbiased presentation, is assumed to take significant impacts on tourism prototype development. If the event reported is of major importance the opportunity for image modify, in a relatively curt flow of time, is present. (Gartner, 1994: 201)

Although the broadcasting of positive news about the destination causes favorable effects on the democratic destination prototype, the broadcasting of contingencies may impairment (seriously, in some cases) such image. Thus, the style in which the tourist perceives chance linked to negative events coming from the media (which is sometimes the simply source of information available nigh the destination) has a pregnant weight on paradigm. Therefore, the recognition of chance every bit a stimulus factor in the destination prototype germination procedure helps marketers to direct their deportment towards minimizing its negative impact.

five. Classification of the approaches that link chance, image and tourist behavioral intention

One time the connection between risk and image is explained, the influence of this interrelation on tourist behavioral intention requires a deeper analysis. This is key in order for the destination management to avoid the effects of possible negative events. In spite of its importance, there is piddling literature explaining this interrelation. The aim of this section is to show this gap and encourage research in this field by proposing an innovative classification based on the manner in which the relations between these three constructs have been addressed. This classification distinguishes three approaches: isolated, intrinsic and integrative. Heretofore, most works in the literature deal with the first two categories. The first two approaches will exist analyzed without presenting an all-encompassing revision since this job has already been carried out past other authors. Yet, bibliographic references are provided so that it can exist investigated in this regard. However, the scarcity of studies that analyze the relationship between perceived run a risk, destination image and intention to visit is glaring (Hamouda & Yacoub, 2018; Lehto, Douglas & Park, 2008). The integrative approach has received little attending and the works plant are recent. For this reason, more attention is devoted. In add-on, we believe that it is an interesting line of research that could give promising results.

five.1. Isolated, intrinsic and integrative approaches

Isolated approach

The isolated approach separates the study of risk from that of image, thus establishing a direct relation between each construct and tourist behavior (hypotheses ha and hb in figure 2). The results of the analyses show that both gamble and image take an influence on the destination pick process.

Risk perception on behavioral intention

In an extensive review of the take chances literature, Yang and Nair (2015) highlight that the effects of adventure perception on behavioral intention is one of the main focal points of the selected bibliography.² The chief determination to be fatigued from these works is that hazard perception has the capacity of inhibiting the travel (Um & Crompton, 1992). The study of the influence of risk perception on behavioural intention allows recognising those issues that worry tourists the most in their journeys (eastward.g. infections, wars, natural disasters, etc.), and consequently, assistance establish policies to minimize them.

The empirical works carried out in different geographical contexts ostend that about travellers are prone to change their travel plans if they perceive a high exposure to take a chance (Kozak et al., 2007; Sönmez & Graefe, 1998a). Law (2006) plant that Asian travellers were more than likely than western tourists to change their travel plans due to their greater sensitivity to risk. Floyd et al. (2004) highlighted how the tourism industry was securely afflicted after 9‑11. Qi et al. (2009) found that the intention of attending the Beijing Olympic Games was significantly conditioned past the perception of violence and socio‑psychological risk. The main limitation of this approach is that it does non consider the touch of run a risk on destination epitome, and therefore, it does non provide the necessary information to fix the image attributes that have been damaged past perceived risks.

Image perception on behavioral intention

Within the image field, the effects of image perception on behavioral intention are also one of the almost relevant and popular topics among researchers and professionals (Chon, 1990; Tasci, Gartner & Tamer Cavusgil, 2007). Other reviews of the literature such as Pike (2002) or Tasci & Gartner (2007) show that the master interest of the works lie in knowing the effects of destination epitome on the visits.³ An important result from these works shows that a distorted epitome could hinder the potential development of a destination. The results of the empirical works show the influence of paradigm on tourist behaviour (Schroeder, 1996; Hallmann, Zehrer & Müller, 2013). Bigné, Sánchez and Sanz (2009) confirmed for a renowned sun‑and‑sand destination (Peñíscola, Spain) that the image turned out to be a significant antecedent to the visit and its recommendation. The work of Phillips and Jang (2010) revealed that the relation between image and behavioural intention varies between the tourists that visited the destination and those who did not.

Understanding the human relationship between destination image and behavioural intention may exist useful to recognise those image attributes that should exist improved in gild to accept an influence on visit intention and recommendation. The diagnosis of strengths and weaknesses of destination image is useful in order to brand specific changes in the destination besides as in its commercialisation (Goodrich, 1978). Withal, this approach overlooks the possible factors of image formation linked with perceived risk that may be damaging the destination's image.

Intrinsic arroyo

In the intrinsic approach, risk is considered to be implicit in image. Thus, it is not treated as a construct but rather as an attribute of epitome. In this approach, it is mutual practice to include i or several items regarding the rubber of the place in the destination image questionnaires (Alvarez & Campo, 2014; Gartner & Shen, 1992; Sönmez & Sirakaya, 2002). Co-ordinate to this approach, there is a directly relation between image and tourist behavior (hypothesis hc in effigy 2). That is, it matches the causal relation expressed by hypothesis hb of the isolated approach (in figure ii), but incorporating issues relative to take chances or safe of the destination into the measurement of destination image. A remarkable effect from nearly works is that hazard becomes a relevant attribute in the valuation of epitome and, therefore, in tourist behavior.

Although risk perception and destination accept been considered every bit separate structure in tourism research (Perpiña et al., 2017), nosotros discover numerous works in the intrinsic approach. Nosotros will mention some of these works, identifying the attribute associated with perceived risk they apply in the measurement of destination image: Ross (1993) includes the safety/environment item; Chen & Kerstetter (1999) introduce the particular lack of law-breaking/safe and, Chen & Hsu (2000) contain the item safe identify. For their role, Rittichainuwat, Qu and Brown (2001) place one dimension relating to perceived adventure that they label as "safe travel destination" after conducting a factorial assay.

The results of the empirical works testify the influence of the prototype on the tourist's selection and, specifically of the "safety/condom" attribute of the destination'southward image (Gibson et al., 2008; Lin, Wu & Chang, 2006; Rittichainuwat et al., 2001). The applications of the intrinsic approach have demonstrated the importance of calculation attributes related to the general safety of the destination to the paradigm assessment. Still, this approach does not let determining the specific threats (east.thousand. illnesses, conflicts, pollution, etc.) that damage the destination's prophylactic paradigm. Appropriately, destination promoters do non accept the necessary information to put together actions to mitigate such threats or specific risks.

As we will see beneath, the integrative approach overcomes the limitations found in the previous approaches (isolated and intrinsic). In recent years, a series of empirical works within this new approach have provided a number of encouraging contributions in this subject.

Integrative arroyo

In the integrative arroyo, the connection betwixt risk and image, as mentioned above, is explained by the participation of risk in the destination image formation process equally a stimulus factor. Thus, this arroyo examines the relation betwixt perceived chance and destination image as distinctive constructs, and its furnishings on behavior intention inside a single report. This new way of considering perceived risk together with destination image, adds valuable information to empathise the tourist'southward behavior.

Figure two
Approaches for the analysis of the influence of risk and paradigm on tourist behavior

* In the integrative arroyo, chance and epitome interchange the following roles: the independent (hypothesishd), mediating (hypothesis he) and moderating (hypotheses hf and hg)

** 1. Goodrich (1978); 2. Ross (1993); 3. Schroeder (1996); four. Court and Lupton (1997); five. Sönmez and Graefe(1998a); half-dozen. Chen and Kerstetter (1999); vii. Chen and Hsu (2000); 8. Rittichainuwat et al. (2001); 9. Sönmezand Sirakaya (2002); 10. Floyd et al. (2004); 11. Law (2006); 12. Lin et al. (2006); thirteen Kozak et al. (2007);14.Gibson et al. (2008); 15. Bigné et al. (2009); 16. Qi et al. (2009); 17. Chen and Funk (2010); xviii. Phillipsand Jang (2010); 19. Ramkissoon, Uysal and Brown (2011); 20. Hallmann et al. (2013); 21.Noh and Vogt(2013); 22. Tavitiyaman and Qu (2013); 23. Chew and Jahari (2014); 24. Wang (2015); 25. Kani et al. (2017);26. Hamouda and Yacoub (2018).

Source: Ain elaboration based on literature

The following section describes the most relevant characteristics of the empirical works that are classified within the integrative approach. It is necessary to betoken out that there are other works (besides those indicated in table 1) that analyze the human relationship between take chances and paradigm but, since they do non include in the model their influence on behavioral intention (due east.one thousand., Ruan et al., 2017), they are not considered to exist part of the integrative approach.

5.ii. The integrative approach

So far every bit is known, works explaining the relation among risk, image and behavioral intention, practice then through several alternative causal models where behavioral intention is always the dependent variable. Nonetheless, run a risk and image interchange the post-obit roles: the independent (hypothesis hard disk drive in figure ii), mediating (hypothesis he in figure 2) and moderating (hypotheses hf and hg in effigy 2) variables.⁴ As shown in table 1, there are works that incorporate, apart from chance and image, other variables (motivations, cultural values, overall satisfaction, etc.) to explicate tourist behavior. The characteristics and master results of the works based on the integrative approach are commented next. The most noteworthy aspects are summarized in table i. In virtually articles, the image acts as a mediator in the models. Likewise, information technology is worth noting the attempts to incorporate the cognitive and affective components of the destination epitome to evaluate if at that place are differentiated effects depending on the component. On the other manus, the perceived risk commonly precedes the image.

Table 1

Integrative approach works characteristics

Source: Own elaboration based on literature

The work of Hamouda and Yacoub (2018) explains the influence of perceived run a risk, electronic word of mouth (eWOM) and motivations on cognitive and affective destination paradigm and on intention to visit a destination for a potential leisure trip. In the model proposed by the authors, destination image assumes a mediating part. The principal findings suggest that perceived gamble has a negative influence on cerebral destination image. Whereas, the affective destination prototype is influenced by eWOM and motivations (knowledge, relaxation and entertainment). The main contribution of the report is to advise a model which takes into account interrelationships between perceived risk, destination epitome, visit intention and other variables (eWOM and motivations).

The paper of Kani, Aziz, Sambasivan and Bojei (2017) analyses the antecedents (cultural values and destinations source credibility) and outcomes (destination attachment, destination satisfaction and revisit intention) of destination epitome. The inquiry addresses both the cerebral and affective components of destination image. This work likewise investigates the moderating part of perceived risk between the destination image of Malaysia and the revisit intention of tourists from West Asia. This would imply that if perceived chance is high, tourists would opt for destinations that are considered to be less risky.

The results provide evidence concerning the mediating function of destination image and the moderating function of perceived risk.

The study of Wang (2017) suggests that the judgment that a potential tourist makes regarding the image of a disaster‑struck destination, in the previsit stage, plays a critical role in the behavioral intention to travel to that destination. The target population are Chinese tourists who have arrived in Taiwan in order to travel to destinations other than the 2 disaster‑hit spots of SuHua Highway and Alishan Forest Railway. The results demonstrated the importance of the mediating role of perceived image in explaining the intentions of potential tourists to visit destinations affected past the disasters as well equally detecting the critical risks influencing the image and, thus recognizing where to direct the actions to modify the negative images.

The work of Chew and Jahari (2014) investigates the effects of risk perceptions on destination prototype of echo tourists from Malaysia to Japan in the post‑Fukushima disaster context. Besides, the study examines the mediating roles of two destination images, namely, cerebral and affective, on the relations between perceived chance and intention to revisit. The findings evidence that destination epitome significantly mediated the relations between ii risks, namely, perceived socio‑psychological and fiscal risks, and revisit intention. The research highlights the importance of integrating perceived hazard with destination image in the future development of effective positioning strategies in order to mitigate perceived adventure, restore image and also better revisit intention in risky destinations.

The research of Noh and Vogt (2013) simultaneously models information search, perceived gamble, and American tourist'southward intention to visit 3 destinations, along with cerebral and affective image. In the model, perceived run a risk and destination paradigm deed as mediating variables. The results evidence that stronger positive cognitive and affective destination images and lower perceived risks for vacationing in a destination positively influenced the intention to visit the countries of involvement. Some differences by countries regarding the force or management of relations between predictor variables and intention to travel were institute (i.e., affective destination image for China, cognitive destination image for Nihon, perceived risks for Due south Korea).

The study of Tavitiyaman and Qu (2013) examines the influence of destination prototype and overall satisfaction on the behavioral intention of travellers to Thailand. Besides, it analyses the moderating issue of perceived risk, specifically that of natural disasters, on the relation between destination image, overall satisfaction, and behavioral intention. The population of this report included tourists who visited Thailand after both the SARS outbreak and the tsunami. Travellers with low perceived take chances on these natural disasters had a greater trend for positive destination image, overall satisfaction, and behavioral intention than that of travellers with high perceived take chances.

As noted in previous cases, the integrative arroyo includes different causal models where risk and epitome interchange the contained, mediating and moderating variables. The assignment of mediating/ moderating roles to the image and perceived risk variables offers an enriching view in lodge to explain the tourist behavior, due to the possibility of evaluating, more than accurately, the way in which the unlike variables relate to each other. The results of these empirical studies confirm the importance of the integrative approach. The words of Chew and Jahari (2014) are revealing in that respect: "without understanding the type of perceived risks which are specific to a tourist destination and their effects on destination image, full general strategies for the comeback of destination image may be less successful in persuading tourists to visit risky destinations" (Chew and Jahari, 2014, p.392). Finally, the use of this approach requires managerial implications to mitigate risk and, therefore, improve both destination epitome and revisit intention. For these reasons, academics are encouraged to deepen understanding of the interrelations between risk, image and behavioral intention.

6. Conclusions

The ascension in the number of threats in tourism, every bit well as the wide coverage of those events by the media, has increased the preoccupation amid tourists and destination promoters for rubber related to travel. Wars, natural disasters, diseases, terrorism, etc., harm the image of destinations resulting in a consequent drop in visits. The effort to reduce the impact of these negative events is essential for the management of tourist destinations past public authorities and companies' market managers. In this work nosotros intend to analyze the process by which the decision of visiting a destination is the effect of evaluating its prototype, being risk an important factor that has an consequence precisely on the destination'due south epitome.

The previous analysis is the foundation upon which we propose an innovative classification that links take a chance and image with behavioral intention. This classification is useful in itself because information technology allows identifying a new line of research that promises encouraging results by calculation valuable data to understand the tourist'due south behavior. From our perspective, the capacity of a model to explain the behavioral intention increases when perceived adventure and destination image are interrelated (integrative approach). This approach allows identifying: a) the types of adventure that unsettle tourists the most; b) the image attributes most affected by this preoccupation; and c) approximate information on the intention of the visit in this context.

The review of the literature allows pointing out a number of theoretical and applied contributions within the frame of the integrative approach. Information technology would be worth noting some results of interest for the management of tourist destinations that are mentioned below:

From a theoretical signal of view, information technology is shared the idea of perceived chance and destination image being independent constructs but related in such a manner that, the higher the perceived risk is, the worse the destination image becomes (Chew & Jahari, 2014). The isolated and intrinsic approaches suggested that constructs affect the behavioural intention of tourists. All the same, the integrative approach suggests that the joint analysis provides a better frame for the understanding of this influence, every bit it considers that the negative relation between run a risk and prototype has an result on the visit intention. On the other hand, there is too a certain consensus in the demand to distinguish between the cognitive and melancholia components of image (Noh & Vogt, 2013). When making this distinction, it is that, in general, the affective component has a greater impact on behavioural intention than the cognitive (Hamouda & Yacoub, 2018).

In the empirical field, there is a loftier degree of agreement in the importance given to the integration of perceived take a chance and destination paradigm into the development of constructive positioning strategies (Chew & Jahari, 2014). Destination marketers must exist more aware of the role of risk in the formation of destination epitome. The strategies to improve prototype volition exist less successful in persuading visits if the types of specific perceived risks and their touch on image are not understood. Therefore, emphasis is placed on the importance of data and promotion campaigns in which the safety of the destinations is shown considering the identified concerns of tourists. This is a basic task, especially in those destinations that accept experienced any kind of threat, disaster or danger (Kani et al, 2017). In these cases, the restoration of image will be achieved, inevitably, by means of mitigating the identified risks, thus making it necessary to publish news and inform about the recovery of those destinations that suffered any kind of threat (Tavitiyaman & Qu, 2013). Some other result that has been establish is that the perceptions of risk may vary depending on the characteristics of the traveller (Kani et al, 2017) and the destination (Promsivapallop & Kanaovakun, 2017). In this sense, the study of this matter in social club to formulate marketing strategies adjusted to the marketplace segments and specific destinations considered is encouraged (Tavitiyaman & Qu, 2013).

Finally, the usefulness of this work is twofold. Firstly, without being an exhaustive review of the literature, it clarifies the current state of the study of this subject. Second, it gives guidance on the direction of the efforts to be fabricated by the researchers in this field. What is more, this information can be of not bad use for marketers and policy makers in the management of tourist destinations.

Bibliography

Adam, I. 2015. Backpackers' risk perceptions and risk reduction strategies in Ghana. Tourism Mana‑ gement, 49, 99‑108.

Ahmed, Z. U. 1996. The need for the identification of the constituents of a destination'south tourist image: A promotion partition perspective. Journal of Professional Services Marketing, xiv(one), 37‑threescore.

Alvarez, Yard. D., and Campo, S. 2014. The influence of political conflicts on state image and intention to visit: A study of Israel'due south image. Tourism Management, xl, 70‑78.

Agapito, D., Oom exercise Valle, P., and da Costa Mendes, J. 2013. The cognitive‑affective‑conative model of destination paradigm: A confirmatory analysis. Periodical of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 30(v), 471‑481.

Baloglu, S., and Brinberg, D. 1997. Melancholia images of tourism destinations. Journal of Travel Resear‑ ch, 35(4), xi‑15.

Baloglu, Southward., and McCleary, Grand. W. 1999. A model of destination epitome formation. Annals of Tourism Research, 26(4), 868‑897.

Baron, R. Thou., and Kenny, D. A. 1986. The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological inquiry: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Periodical of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(vi), 1173‑1182.

Bauer, R. A. 1960. Consumer Behavior as Take chances Taking. In R. Southward. Hancock ed., Dynamic Marketing for a Irresolute Globe (389‑398). American Marketing Association: Chicago.

Beerli, A., and Martín, J. 2004a. Tourists' characteristics and the perceived paradigm of tourist destinations: A quantitative analysis—a example written report of Lanzarote, Spain. Tourism Management, 25(5), 623‑636.

Beerli, A., and Martín, J. D. 2004b. Factors influencing destination image. Annals of Tourism Inquiry, 31(three), 657‑681.

Bigné, J. E., Sánchez, M. I., and Sánchez, J. 2001. Tourism image, evaluation variables and afterwards buy behaviour: Inter‑relationship. Tourism Management, 22(half-dozen), 607‑616.

Bigné, J.E., Sánchez, Chiliad.I., and Sanz, S. 2009. The functional‑psychological continuum in the cerebral prototype of a destination: A confirmatory analysis. Tourism management, xxx(5), 715‑723.

Chen, N., and Funk, D. C. 2010. Exploring destination image, experience and revisit intention: A comparison of sport and non‑sport tourist perceptions. Periodical of Sport and Tourism, xv(three), 239‑259.

Chen, J. Due south., and Hsu, C. H. 2000. Measurement of Korean tourists' perceived images of overseas destinations. Periodical of Travel Research, 38(4), 411‑416.

Chen, P. J., and Kerstetter, D. 50. 1999. International students' image of rural Pennsylvania as a travel destination. Journal of Travel Research, 37(3), 256‑266.

Chen, C., and Tsai, D. 2007. How destination image and evaluative factors affect behavioral intentions? Tourism Management, 28(4), 1115‑1122.

Cheron, E. J., and Ritchie, J. R. 1982. Leisure activities and perceived adventure. Journal of Leisure Research, fourteen(2), 139‑154.

Chew, Eastward. Y. T., and Jahari, S. A. 2014. Destination image as a mediator between perceived risks and revisit intention: A case of post‑disaster Japan. Tourism Management, 40, 382‑393.

Chon, K. 1990. The role of destination image in tourism: A review and discussion. The Tourist Review, 45(2), ii‑nine.

Cohen, Eastward. 1972. Toward a sociology of international tourism. Social Research, 39, 164‑182.

Court, B., and Lupton, R. A. 1997. Customer portfolio development: Modeling destination adopters, inactives, and rejecters. Journal of Travel Inquiry, 36(1), 35‑43.

Crompton, J. L. 1979. An assessment of the epitome of Mexico equally a holiday destination and the influence of geographical location upon that epitome. Periodical of Travel Research, 17(iv), 18‑23.

Dann, G. K. 1996. Tourists' images of a destination‑an alternative analysis. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 5(1‑two), 41‑55.

Dolnicar, S. 2005. Fear segments in tourism. CD Proceedings of the 14th International Research Conference of the Council for Australian University Tourism and Hospitality Didactics (CAUTHE), i‑five February 2005, Commonwealth of australia.

Dowling, Grand. R., and Staelin, R. 1994. A model of perceived risk and intended hazard‑handling activity. Periodical of Consumer Research, 21(i), 119‑134.

Echtner, C. Chiliad., and Ritchie, J. B. 1991. The meaning and measurement of destination image. Journal of Tourism Studies, 2(2), 2‑12.

Fakeye, P. C., and Crompton, J. L. 1991. Image differences between prospective, first‑time, and echo visitors to the Lower Rio Grande Valley. Periodical of Travel Inquiry, 30(ii), 10‑xvi

Floyd, Chiliad. F., Gibson, H., Pennington‑Gray, L., and Thapa, B. 2004. The effect of risk perceptions on intentions to travel in the aftermath of September 11, 2001. Periodical of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 15(ii‑3), xix‑38.

Fuchs, G., and Reichel, A. 2006. Tourist destination adventure perception: The case of Israel. Journal of Hospitality and Leisure Marketing, fourteen(2), 83‑108.

Fuchs, M., and Reichel, A. 2011. An exploratory inquiry into destination run a risk perceptions and risk reduction strategies of beginning time vs. repeat visitors to a highly volatile destination. Tourism Mana‑ gement, 32(2), 266‑276.

Fuchs, G. 2013. Low versus loftier sensation seeking tourists: a study of backpackers' experience risk perception. International Journal of Tourism Research, 15(1), 81‑92.

Gallarza, One thousand. Grand., Saura, I. G., and Garcı a, H. C. 2002. Destination image: Towards a conceptual framework. Register of Tourism Inquiry, 29(one), 56‑78.

Gartner, W. C. 1989. Tourism image: Aspect measurement of state tourism products using multidi‑ mensional scaling techniques. Journal of Travel Inquiry, 28(2), 16‑20.

Gartner, Due west. C. 1994. Epitome germination process. Periodical of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 2(ii‑3), 191‑216.

Gartner, W. C., and Shen, J. 1992. The touch on of Tiananmen Square on China's tourism paradigm. Journal of Travel Research, xxx(4), 47‑52.

Gartner, Due west. C., and Chase, J. D. 1987. An analysis of land epitome change over a twelve‑year period (1971‑1983). Journal of Travel Enquiry, 26(2), 15‑19.

Gibson, H. J., Qi, C. X., and Zhang, J. J. 2008. Destination image and intent to visit China and the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games. Journal of Sport Management, 22(4), 427‑450.

Gitelson, R. J., and Crompton, J. L. 1983. The planning horizons and sources of information used by pleasure vacationers. Journal of Travel Research, 21(iii), 2‑seven.

Goodrich, J. N. 1978. The relationship between preferences for and perceptions of vacation destinations: Application of a choice model. Journal of Travel research, 17(2), 8‑13.

Gunn, C. A. 1988. Vacationscape: Designing tourist regions (second ed.). Van Nostrand Reinhold: New York.

Hallmann, G., Zehrer, A., and Müller, S. 2015. Perceived destination image: An paradigm model for a winter sports destination and its consequence on intention to revisit. Journal of Travel Inquiry, 54(1), 94‑106.

Hamouda, Chiliad., and Yacoub, I. 2018. Explaining visit intention involving eWOM, perceived risk motivations and destination paradigm. International Journal of Leisure and Tourism Marketing, 6(i), 65‑82.

Huang, Y., Tseng, Y., and Yiap, L. 2013. Image recovery of the resurrected seashore city‑New Orleans, Louisiana. Journal of Coastal Research, 29(2), 430‑437.

Hui, T. K., and Wan, T. West. D. 2003. Singapore'due south image as a tourist destination. International Periodical of Tourism Research, five(4), 305‑313.

Chase, J. D. 1975. Image every bit a factor in tourism evolution. Periodical of Travel Research, xiii(3), 1‑7.

Jacoby, J., and Kaplan, Fifty. B. 1972. The components of perceived risk. Advances in Consumer Inquiry, three(3), 382‑383.

Kani, Y., Aziz, Y. A., Sambasivan, M., and Bojei, J. 2017. Antecedents and outcomes of destination image of Malaysia. Periodical of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 32, 89‑98.

Kaplan, L. B., Szybillo, Thou. J., and Jacoby, J. 1974. Components of perceived gamble in product purchase: A cross‑validation. Journal of Practical Psychology, 59(three), 287‑291

Kraemer, H. C., Stice, Due east., Kazdin, A., Offord, D., and Kupfer, D. 2001. How exercise risk factors work together? Mediators, moderators, and independent, overlapping, and proxy take chances factors. American journal of psychiatry, 158(6), 848‑856.

Kozak, K., Crotts, J. C., and Law, R. 2007. The impact of the perception of risk on international travellers. International Journal of Tourism Research, ix(4), 233‑242.

Law, R. 2006. The perceived touch on of risks on travel decisions. International Journal of Tourism Enquiry, 8(4), 289‑300.

Lehto, X., Douglas, A. C., and Park, J. 2008. Mediating the furnishings of natural disasters on travel intention. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 23(2‑4), 29‑43.

Lepp, A., and Gibson, H. 2003. Tourist roles, perceived hazard and international tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 30(3), 606‑624.

Lin, Y. H., Wu, C. Y., and Chang, J. 2006. Destination image and visit intention amid members of Yahoo!‑Taiwan'south travel communities: an online survey arroyo. Tourism Analysis, 11(1), 61‑69.

Maser, B., and Weiermair, K. 1998. Travel decision‑making: From the vantage bespeak of perceived risk and information preferences. Periodical of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 7(iv), 107‑121.

Milman, A., and Pizam, A. 1995. The role of awareness and familiarity with a destination: The Fundamental Florida case. Journal of Travel Research, 33(3), 21‑27.

Mowen, J. C., and Modest, One thousand. 1998. Consumer behavior (5th. ed.). Prentice Hall. Upper Saddle River: New Bailiwick of jersey.

Noh, J., and Vogt, C. 2013. Modelling information apply, image, and perceived risk with intentions to travel to East Asia. Electric current Problems in Tourism, 16(5), 455‑476.

Olague, J.T., Flores, C.A. and Garza, J.B. 2017. El efecto de la motivación de viaje sobre la satisfacción del turista a través de las dimensiones de la imagen del destino: El caso del turismo urbano de ocio a Monterrey, México. Investigaciones Turísticas, (14), 109‑129.

Perpiña, Fifty., Camprubí, R., and Prats, L. 2017. Destination epitome versus risk perception. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research. doi:x.1177/1096348017704497.

Phillips, W. J., and Jang, S. 2010. Destination paradigm differences between visitors and non visitors: a case of New York city. International Periodical of Tourism Research, 12(v), 642‑645.

Pike, S. 2002. Destination image analysis—a review of 142 papers from 1973 to 2000. Tourism Mana‑ gement, 23(five), 541‑549.

Pike, Southward., and Ryan, C. 2004. Destination positioning assay through a comparison of cognitive, melancholia, and conative perceptions. Journal of Travel Research, 42(4), 333‑342.

Plog, South. C. 1974. Why destination areas ascension and fall in popularity. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 14(iv), 55‑58.

Prayag, Yard. 2009. Tourists'evaluations of destination paradigm, satisfaction, and hereafter behavioral inten‑ tions—the case of Mauritius. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 26(8), 836‑853.

Qi, C. X., Gibson, H. J., and Zhang, J. J. 2009. Perceptions of adventure and travel intentions: The case of China and the Beijing Olympic Games. Journal of Sport and Tourism, 14(ane), 43‑67.

Quintal, V. A., Lee, J. A., and Soutar, Thou. North. 2010. Hazard, uncertainty and the theory of planned behavior: A tourism case. Tourism Management, 31(6), 797‑805.

Ramkissoon, H., Uysal, M., and Brown, Thou. 2011. Human relationship betwixt destination image and beha‑ vioral intentions of tourists to consume cultural attractions. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 20(5), 575‑595.

Reichel, A., Fuchs, G., and Uriely, N. 2007. Perceived hazard and the non‑institutionalized tourist role: The example of israeli pupil ex‑backpackers. Journal of Travel Research, 46(ii), 217‑226.

Reisinger, Y., and Mavondo, F. 2005. Travel anxiety and intentions to travel internationally: Implications of travel gamble perception. Journal of Travel Research, 43(3), 212‑225.

Rittichainuwat, B. North., Qu, H., and Brown, T. J. 2001. Thailand'southward international travel image: Mostly favorable. Cornell Hotel and Eating place Administration Quarterly, 42(2), 82‑95.

Rittichainuwat, B. Northward., and Chakraborty, G. 2009. Perceived travel risks regarding terrorism and disease: The case of Thailand. Tourism Direction, 30(3), 410‑418.

Roehl, Westward. Southward., and Fesenmaier, D. R. 1992. Risk perceptions and pleasance travel: An exploratory analysis. Periodical of Travel Research, thirty(iv), 17‑26.

Roselius, T. 1971. Consumer rankings of risk reduction methods. Journal of Marketing, 35, 56‑61. Ross, I. 1975. Perceived risk and consumer behavior: A disquisitional review. Advances in Consumer Research, 2(1), i‑20.

Ruan, Due west. Q., Li, Y. Q., and Liu, C. H. S. 2017. Measuring Tourism Risk Impacts on Destination Image. Sustainability, 9(9), 1501.

Ross, One thousand. F. 1993. Ideal and bodily images of backpacker visitors to Northern Australia. Periodical of Travel Research, 32(2), 54‑57

Russell, J. A., and Pratt, K. 1980. A description of the affective quality attributed to environments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38(2), 311‑322.

San Martín, H., and Rodríguez del Bosque, I. A. 2008. Exploring the cognitive–melancholia nature of destination image and the part of psychological factors in its formation. Tourism Direction, 29(2), 263‑277.

Schiffman, Fifty. G., and Kanuk, L. L. 1991. Advice and consumer behavior. Consumer Behavior, 2, 268‑306.

Schroeder, T. 1996. The relationship of residents' image of their state as a tourist destination and their back up for tourism. Journal of Travel Research, 34(4), 71‑73.

Simpson, P. M., and Siguaw, J. A. 2008. Perceived travel risks: The traveller perspective and managea‑ bility. International Periodical of Tourism Research, 10(4), 315‑327.

Sönmez, S. F. 1998. Tourism, terrorism, and political instability. Annals of Tourism Research, 25(ii), 416‑456.

Sönmez, Southward. F., and Graefe, A. R. 1998a. Determining futurity travel behavior from past travel experience and perceptions of risk and condom. Journal of Travel Research, 37(two), 171‑177.

Sönmez, S. F., and Graefe, A. R. 1998b. Influence of terrorism risk on foreign tourism decisions. Annals of Tourism Research, 25(i), 112‑144.

Sönmez, S., and Sirakaya, E. 2002. A distorted destination image? The case of Turkey. Journal of Travel Enquiry, 41(2), 185‑196.

Stone, R. N., and Grønhaug, K. 1993. Perceived risk: Farther considerations for the marketing discipline. European Periodical of Marketing, 27(3), 39‑fifty.

Tasci, A. D., and Gartner, W. C. 2007. Destination image and its functional relationships. Journal of Travel Research, 45(4), 413‑425.

Tasci, A. D., Gartner, Due west. C., and Tamer Cavusgil, S. 2007. Conceptualization and operationalization of destination image. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research, 31(2), 194‑223.

Stylos, Northward., Bellou, 5., Andronikidis, A., and Vassiliadis, C. A. 2017. Linking the dots amid destination images, place attachment, and revisit intentions: A study among British and Russian tourists. Tourism Management, lx, 15‑29.

Tavitiyaman, P., and Qu, H. 2013. Destination image and behavior intention of travelers to Thailand: The moderating effect of perceived take a chance. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 30(3), 169‑185.

Tsaur, Due south., Tzeng, Yard., and Wang, G. 1997. Evaluating tourist risks from fuzzy perspectives. Annals of Tourism Enquiry, 4(24), 796‑812.

Um, S., and Crompton, J. L. 1992. The roles of perceived inhibitors and facilitators in pleasure travel destination decisions. Journal of Travel Inquiry, 30(3), eighteen‑25.

Wang, H. Y. 2015. Determinants hindering the intention of tourists to visit disaster‑striking destinations. Current Issues in Tourism, 20(five), 459‑479.

Wang, C. Y., and Hsu, K. Thou. 2010. The relationships of destination epitome, satisfaction, and behavioral intentions: An integrated model. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 27(8), 829‑843.

Woodside, A. G., and Lysonski, S. 1989. A general model of traveler destination choice. Journal of Travel Research, 27(four), 8‑fourteen.

Xu, J., Chan, T. L., and Pratt, Southward. 2017. Destination Image of Taiwan From the Perspective of Hong Kong Residents: Revisiting Structural Relationships Between Destination Image Attributes and Behavioral Intention. International Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Assistants, i‑23.

Yang, E. C. L., and Nair, 5. 2015. Tourism at risk: A review of run a risk and perceived risk in tourism. Asia‑ ‑Pacific Journal of Innovation in Hospitality and Tourism, 3(two), 1‑21.

Zhang, H., Fu, X., Cai, L. A., and Lu, L. 2014. Destination paradigm and tourist loyalty: A meta‑analysis. Tou‑ rism Management, 40, 213‑223.

Ross, I. 1975. Perceived risk and consumer behavior: A critical review. Advances in Consumer Inquiry, ii(1), 1‑20.

Notes

¹ The study of Perpiña et al. (2017) asserts that the attributes that separately assess cognitive epitome and run a risk constructs ofttimes overlap so they recommend the elimination of duplicate assessments.

² Authors review a total of 46 works.

³ 142 reviewed by Pike (2002) and 39 past Tasci & Gartner (2007).

^iv Mediating variables explain how and why a certain event is produced, whereas moderating variables explicate when or in what subjects/weather sure effects will occur (Kraemer, Stice, Kazdin, Offord & Kupfer, 2001). The literature establishes criteria to distinguish, based on information, whether a variable is either mediating or moderating. To report this topic in depth, run into the works of Baron and Kenny (1996) and Kraemer et al. (2001).

Share this post