Current Issues in Tourism

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcit20

Travel risk perception and travel behaviour during

the COVID-19 pandemic 2020: a case study of the
DACH region

Larissa Neuburger & Roman Egger

To cite this article: Larissa Neuburger & Roman Egger (2020): Travel risk perception and travel
behaviour during the COVID-19 pandemic 2020: a case study of the DACH region, Current Issues
in Tourism, DOI: 10.1080/13683500.2020.1803807

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2020.1803807

Published online: 11 Aug 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 165

View related articles

View Crossmark data

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

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rcit20
CURRENT ISSUES IN TOURISM
https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2020.1803807

Travel risk perception and travel behaviour during the COVID-19

pandemic 2020: a case study of the DACH region
a b
Larissa Neuburger and Roman Egger
a
Department of Tourism, Hospitality and Event Management, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA; bDepartment
of Innovation and Management in Tourism, Salzburg University of Applied Sciences, Salzburg, Austria

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

The study examined the relationship between perception of COVID-19, Received 12 April 2020
travel risk perception and travel behaviour among travellers in the DACH Accepted 25 July 2020
region (Germany, Austria, Switzerland) – an important tourism market
KEYWORDS
and, after Italy, the second region in Europe that was impacted by risk perception; travel
COVID-19. Data were collected at two points of time: the sample of the behaviour; health crisis;
study in Period 1 (n = 1158) was collected at a critical point in time in outbreak; disease;
the beginning of March 2020, when Italy was already massively affected coronavirus; COVID-19;
by COVID-19; the sample of the study in Period 2 (n = 212) was cluster analysis
collected two weeks later, when Europe has seen immense impacts and
COVID-19 was declared a pandemic. Cluster analysis was performed and
defined three unique clusters in both periods with distinctive
characteristics. In addition, results revealed a significant increase in risk
perception of COVID-19, travel risk perception and travel behaviour over
a short period of time.

Introduction
Europe is one of the major markets within the global tourism industry and represents one in two trips
worldwide accounting for 48% of the total outbound tourism (United Nations World Tourism Organ-
ization [UNWTO], 2019). Within Europe, the DACH region comprises of Germany (D), Austria (A), and
Switzerland (CH), countries connected through geographical proximity, as well as cultural and linguis-
tic similarities (Kiefhaber, 2018). Tourism as part of the service sector is the largest contributor and
economic driver for the respective countries’ gross domestic product (GDP). In 2018, the GDP in
the DACH region accounted for $5.1 trillion (International Monetary Fund [IMF], 2019), of which
the service sector contributed to 62.5% of the total GDP in Austria, 61.8% in Germany, and 71.4%
Switzerland (The World Bank, 2020). The outbound tourism of the DACH region accounted for
more than 135 million tourists in 2018, and Germany is considered the world’s third-largest
tourism spender at $94 billion (UNWTO, 2019, 2020d).
On 30 January 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) announced the outbreak of the respir-
atory Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by the virus ‘SARS-CoV-2’. Two months later, on
March 13, the director of the WHO declared COVID-19 a pandemic and Europe its epicentre (Callaway
et al., 2020). The COVID-19 outbreak was first detected on 31 December 2019 in Wuhan (Hubei pro-
vince), China. By March 3, COVID-19 had affected more than 70 destinations including China, South
Korea, U.S., Iran, Italy as well as Germany, Austria and Switzerland. With the rapid spread of COVID-19
cases beyond China in a very short time span, Italy announced a nationwide lockdown on March 10
(Amante & Balmer, 2020). The direct threat of the virus’ spread from Italy influenced the neighbouring

CONTACT Larissa Neuburger l.neuburger@ufl.edu

© 2020 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 L. NEUBURGER AND R. EGGER

countries Austria (on March 15) and Switzerland (on March 16) to close businesses and put major
travel restrictions and stay-home orders in place (The Austrian Parliament, 2020; The Federal
Council, 2020). On March 18, the WHO (2020b) reported 191,127 COVID-19 cases worldwide with
74,760 cases in Europe alone. Despite its rapid person-to-person spread, the immediate health risk
from COVID-19 has been considered mild to severe (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
[CDC], 2020a; WHO, 2020a).
On March 3, the CDC (2020a) issued recommendations to avoid nonessential travel to China, Iran,
South Korea and Italy (Level 3), and advised practicing precautions while travelling to Japan (Level 2)
and Hong Kong (Level 1). On March 19, travel warnings were extended to most European countries as
well as restrictions on entry to the U.S due to the widespread transmission of COVID-19 (CDC, 2020a).
In addition, a global outbreak notice was published advising older adults and people with chronic
medical conditions to postpone all nonessential travel (CDC, 2020b). Due to travel bans, 96% of
the overall world population were impacted by some kind of international travel restriction (Gössling
et al., 2020; UNWTO, 2020f).
Tourism has been one of the most affected sectors of the COVID-19 outbreak. The UNWTO (2020b)
first estimated the impact of COVID-19 on the tourism industry to result in a loss of up to $50 billion in
spending and a decline of international tourist arrivals of up to 3% worldwide on March 6. However,
on March 26, the UNWTO (2020c) revised their estimation and forecasted a decline of international
tourist arrivals by 20–30% in 2020 compared with 2019, with a loss of $300–450 billion. This was again
corrected to estimated 60–80% based on a decline of arrivals of 57% for the month of March
(UNWTO, 2020e). Most airlines reduced or cancelled flights due to lower demand and international
border closures (Darlak et al., 2020). Hotels and tourist accommodations were forced to temporarily
or permanently close due to plunging occupancy rates or government restrictions (Anzolin et al.,
2020). A major impact on the tourism industry was the cancellation of (mega) events, festivals,
and conferences that negatively affected the local economy of the host destination (Skift, 2020).
Previously, health crises have affected the tourism economy and travel behaviour of tourists such
as the outbreak of SARS (Pine & McKercher, 2004), H1N1 (Lee et al., 2012; Leggat et al., 2010), or Ebola
(Cahyanto et al., 2016). However, the outbreak of COVID-19 evolved into a major media event and a
global crisis that massively influenced the tourism industry and the travel behaviour of tourists world-
wide (UNWTO, 2020b).
Numerous studies have examined risk perception of travellers in the aftermath of health crises
(Cahyanto et al., 2016; Floyd et al., 2000; Floyd & Pennington-Gray, 2004; Lee et al., 2012; Leggat
et al., 2010; Sönmez & Graefe, 1998a). However, little is known about how COVID-19, a pandemic
exceeding all former tourism crises, affects the risk perception of travellers and influences travel
behaviour over time. Thus, the purpose of this study is to examine risk perception regarding travel
during the outbreak of COVID-19 in 2020 and how it influences travel behaviour in the DACH
region. Specifically, the objectives of this study are to (1) examine the change of travel risk perception
and travel behaviour during a pandemic over time; (2) profile segments of travellers at two points of
time based on their perceived risk of COVID-19, perceived risk of travelling during the pandemic out-
break and travel behaviour, in particular, the change, cancellation or avoidance of travel (plans); and
(3) examine differences among the segments in terms of individual characteristics. This study contrib-
utes a novel perspective of the development of risk perception and travel behaviour during a health
crisis by identifying profiles of prospective tourists during a pandemic outbreak at two different
stages of its spread.
Hence, data was collected at two periods of time connected to different stages of the pandemic
outbreak. The sample of Period 1 was collected from March 1 to 4 before COVID-19 was declared a
pandemic, when case numbers were slowly rising in Europe, especially in Italy, and 95,286 cases
worldwide were confirmed (European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control [ECDC], 2020).
The sample of Period 2 was collected from March 15 to 19 after the WHO declared COVID-19 a pan-
demic, worldwide cases amounted to 657,140 (ECDC, 2020) and numerous countries were on stay-
home or lockdown orders (including Italy, Austria, Spain, and France) (Reuters, 2020). A deeper
 CURRENT ISSUES IN TOURISM 3

understanding of travel risk perception and travel behaviour during a health-related crisis such as a
virus outbreak can help governments, destinations, tourism marketers and hospitality services to
manage health crises more effectively (Lee et al., 2012).

Literature review
Risk perception
Risk perception can be explained as the subjective evaluation of the risk of a threatening situation
based on its features and severity (Moreira, 2008; Sjöberg et al., 2004). Based on its evaluation, risk
perception can influence an individual’s behaviour (Weinstein, 1988). Thereby, risk is perceived differ-
ently based on individual characteristics, social structures, and cultural beliefs (Boholm, 1998; Sjöberg
et al., 2004). In addition, media plays a significant role influencing public opinions and individuals’ risk
perception (Wahlberg & Sjöberg, 2000). Mass media often tends to exaggerate the risk of a situation
by selectively emphasizing certain aspects while ignoring others (Beirman, 2003).
Risk perception in tourism is linked to the evaluation of a situation regarding the risk to make
travel decisions, purchase and consume travel products or experiences (Reisinger & Mavondo,
2005). In the tourism literature, risk perception is a highly discussed topic particularly when it
comes to international travel (Pine & McKercher, 2004; Schroeder et al., 2013; Yavas, 1990). There
are different types of risk that influence perceived travel risk. Sönmez (1998) classified perceived
risk in tourism into the categories financial, psychological, satisfaction risk and time, while Maser
and Weiermair (1998) categorized travel risks into natural disasters, hygiene and diseases, crimes
and accidents as well as health concerns (Richter, 2003).
However, a tourist’s risk perception is influenced by different factors such as individual character-
istics and demographic factors (Carr, 2001; Seddighi et al., 2001). Other factors include internal factors
such as cultural background and past experiences and external factors like media, other information
sources and surrounding influence groups (Lepp & Gibson, 2003; Sönmez, 1998).
Perceived travel risk can lead to a decrease in travel demand in the circumstances of terrorism
(Wilks & Moore, 2003), diseases (Leggat et al., 2010; Pine & McKercher, 2004; Yanni et al., 2010),
natural disasters (Park & Reisinger, 2010), and mega events (Schroeder et al., 2013). In connection
to travel intentions, risk perception is shaped by past experiences, demographics, psychographics,
and knowledge (Pennington-Gray et al., 2011).
Perceived risk consists of one’s perceived susceptibility to a disease and its perceived severity
(Floyd et al., 2000). Susceptibility refers to the perceived risk of contracting a disease while perceived
severity can be explained as one’s perception of the gravity of a disease (Brewer & Fazekas, 2007). The
higher the perception of susceptibility and severity of a disease, the more likely is an individual’s
engagement in behaviour to reduce the risk of contraction (Chapman & Skinner, 2008). Individuals,
who feel at risk of contracting a disease, will engage in measures to prevent this risk such as avoid-
ance of travel (Brewer et al., 2007). Individuals’ risk perception of domestic and international travel in
times of a health crisis does not only depend on the probability of contraction but is mostly driven by
media coverage and public opinions (McKercher & Chon, 2004).

Risk and travel behaviour

The perceived risk of travelling in general or a specific destination is highly related to the intention to
change one’s travel plans, travel to a certain destination or avoid a certain destination (Pennington-
Gray et al., 2011; Reisinger & Mavondo, 2005; Schroeder et al., 2013; Sönmez & Graefe, 1998b). In
addition, self-efficacy becomes relevant when one perceives a risk as likely or severe and in response
takes action to avoid the risk by cancelling the trip or changing the travel destination (Rogers, 1975;
Schroeder et al., 2013). Thus, perceived risk cannot only influence the decision of where to travel but
also whether or not to travel in the first place (Floyd et al., 2000; Lepp & Gibson, 2003; Reisinger &
4 L. NEUBURGER AND R. EGGER

Mavondo, 2005; Rittichainuwat & Chakraborty, 2009; Sönmez & Graefe, 1998a) as well as the intention
to return to the destination (Schusterschitz et al., 2010).
In addition, media coverage plays a crucial role in the relationship between risk perception and
travel intention. When media links a certain destination with a negative event or an increased risk
of incidents, tourists are more likely to change their travel plans to avoid the perceived ‘unsafe’ des-
tination and seek a safer alternative (Sönmez & Graefe, 1998a). Tourists are more likely to avoid des-
tinations with an increased safety risk such as terrorist attacks, natural disasters or a pandemic
outbreak (Pizam & Fleischer, 2002; Rittichainuwat & Chakraborty, 2009). Thus, it is crucial to under-
stand the relationship between risk perception and travel behaviour.
Based on the literature, this study sought to understand how different clusters of travellers have
different levels of risk perceptions. Further, the authors hypothesize that at different stages of a pan-
demic outbreak, distinctive identifiable groups can be clustered regarding their travel risk perception
and travel behaviour. Hence, to examine travel risk perception and travel behaviour during a pan-
demic outbreak, the following research questions were formulated:

(1) How do travellers in the DACH region perceive the risk of COVID-19, travel risk perception?
(2) How does risk perception, travel risk perception and travel behaviour change over time, during
the different phases of a pandemic outbreak?
(3) What demographic factors influence risk perception of COVID-19 and travel risk perception and
travel behaviour?
(4) What clusters can be identified based on perception of COVID-19, travel risk perception and
travel behaviour?

Methodology
This study was conducted using a quantitative research design. The survey instrument was a self-admi-
nistered questionnaire consisting of four sections. The constructs included perception of COVID-19, travel
risk perception and travel behaviour followed by sociodemographic questions. Using a five-point Likert
scale, all items were ranked from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The construct perception of
COVID-19 was operationalized with three items as suggested by previous studies (Cahyanto et al., 2016;
Lee et al., 2012). Travel risk perception was measured with seven items adopted from previous literature
(Floyd & Pennington-Gray, 2004; Lee et al., 2012; Sönmez & Graefe, 1998b). The construct travel behaviour
used ten items adopted from previous studies (Reisinger & Mavondo, 2005). All items were modified and
formulated in German language to fit the context of this study (Table 2).
The overall study sample consisted of travellers from the DACH region including Germany, Austria
and Switzerland. The data collection was performed by distributing a survey at two periods of time
during the COVID-19 outbreak. The data was collected from the same sampling frame where the
sample of Period 2 was nested within the sample of Period 1. The sample of the study in Period 1
was collected through an online survey distributed on various social media channels and e-mail list-
servs between 1 and 4 March 2020. The sample of Period 1 consisted of 1158 prospective tourists. To
examine pattern changes in answers at a later point of the outbreak, a follow-up e-mail with a link to
the online survey was sent to participants of the first study. The sample of Period 2 was collected
during the time period 15–19 March 2020 and consisted of 212 respondents. Cluster analysis was per-
formed to classify participants into groups based on their perception of COVID-19, travel risk percep-
tion and travel behaviour.

Results
Sample analysis
The samples of both time periods were derived from the same sampling frame. The overall
sample consisted of 34.9% male and 64.7% female participants from the following countries:
 CURRENT ISSUES IN TOURISM 5

72.8% Austria, 20.4% Germany, and 0.9% Switzerland. The majority of participants are within the
age range of 21–50 years and has higher education (50.5%). In terms of travel behaviour, 32.8% of
respondents travel 1–2 per year, almost 45.5% travel 3–5 times per year and 21.8% more than 5
times (Table 1).

Measures and data analysis

SPSS 26 statistical software package and Python 3.9 were used to analyse the data. Cronbach’s Alpha
(α), Average Variance Extracted (AVE) and Composite Reliability (CR) were calculated to measure the
reliability of the scales used in this study (Table 2). AVE and CR showed greater values of all constructs
than the required 0.5 for AVE and 0.7 for CR (Hair et al., 2006). The reliability test of Cronbach’s Alpha
indicated that the values of the constructs travel risk perception and travel behaviour were greater
than the required α>0.70 for scales with more than five items (Cortina, 1993). The value of α=0.64
for the construct perception of COVID-19 can be seen as acceptable due to the low number of
items (Hair et al., 2006).
The data shows that severity of COVID-19 was perceived as relatively low in Period 1 (Table 2).
Travel risk perception indicate higher mean values than perception of COVID-19 but can still be
seen as moderate based on the five-point Likert scale. The mean associated with travel behaviour
also showed moderate values. In Period 2, the perception of COVID-19 and the change of travel
behaviour increased significantly (Table 2). Travel risk perception showed the highest increase to
almost the maximum of the scale.
Linear regression was used to show the influence of sociodemographic variables and individual
characteristics as well as hierarchical linear regression to illustrate the influence of the two
different time periods on all three constructs. The results in Table 3 show that the change over

Table 1. Frequency of variables.

Study Period 1 Study Period 2
n % n %
Gender (N = 1032/198)
Male 364 35.5 68 34.3
Female 663 64.2 129 65.2
Others 5 0.5 1 0.5
Nationality (N = 1021/197)
Austria 704 69 151 76.6
Germany 229 22.4 36 18.3
Switzerland 12 1.2 1 0.5
Other 76 7.4 9 4.6
Age (N = 1158/198)
16–20 66 5.7 21 10.6
21–30 443 38.3 101 51
31–40 201 17.4 31 15.7
41–50 191 16.5 33 16.7
51–60 92 7.9 8 4
61–70 23 2 4 2
Above 70 142 12.3 0 0
Education (N = 1024/198)
No high school 84 8.2 15 7.6
High school or equivalent 353 34.4 74 37.4
Some college 6 6.3 10 5.1
Undergraduate degree 249 24.3 47 23.7
Graduate degree 231 22.5 46 23.3
Other degree 42 4.1 6 3
Travel frequency (N = 1025/198)
1–2 times per year 366 35.7 59 29.8
3–5 times per year 440 42.9 95 48
More than 5 times per year 219 21.4 44 22.2
Source: Author’s own survey data.
6 L. NEUBURGER AND R. EGGER

Table 2. Reliability and mean values.

Study Period 1 Study Period 2
Mean (SD) α AVE CR Mean (SD) α AVE CR
Perception of COVID-19 2.37 (0.83) 0.65 0.54 0.78 3.69 (0.82) 0.65 0.55 0.78
The current situation about the coronavirus worries me 2.85 (1.15) 4.11 (0.93)
Coronavirus is just a new form of the flu 2.31 (1.10) 3.48 (1.24)
I think there is a lot of fearmongering around the coronavirus 1.92 (1.02) 3.49 (1.15)
Travel Risk Perception 3.18 (0.78) 0.82 0.52 0.86 4.26 (0.63) 0.82 0.53 0.87
Tourism is mainly responsible for the spread of coronavirus 3.31 (1.21) 3.96 (0.96)
Tourism will be massively affected by coronavirus 4.07 (0.87) 4.86 (0.48)
Staying in a hotel is a risk, as there are many people from 2.71 (1.16) 3.95 (1.15)
different countries, who could carry the virus
I fear that the virus will be carried by tourists to my near 3.03 (1.20) 3.47 (1.21)
surroundings
Travelling should be prohibited to avoid a wider spread of 2.19 (1.12) 4.29 (1.02)
the virus
Currently, it is irresponsible to be sent on business trips to 3.45 (1.25) 4.69 (1.02)
countries with a high number of cases
Currently, it is irresponsible to travel to destinations with 3.41 (1.24) 4.57 (0.81)
cases of coronavirus
Travel Behaviour 2.31 (0.87) 0.87 0.53 0.90 4.09 (0.77) 0.87 0.53 0.89
My travel behaviour is likely to change due to coronavirus 2.80 (1.29) 4.38 (0.96)
If I travel to another country depends on how media is 2.64 (1.20) 3.16 (1.26)
reporting about that country
Currently, I would cancel travel plans to countries with 2.81 (1.30) 4.24 (1.12)
reported cases of coronavirus
Currently, I would cancel travel plans to countries with no 1.63 (0.94) 3.64 (1.42)
reported cases of coronavirus
Currently I would avoid trips by airplane/boat 2.72 (1.37) 4.55 (0.92)
Currently I would avoid trips by train 2.17 (1.22) 4.12 (1.14)
Currently I would avoid domestic travel 1.56 (0.93) 3.86 (1.24)
Currently I would avoid big events 2.66 (1.39) 4.75 (0.66)
I would avoid tourist attractions in my home town 2.03 (1.13) 4.18 (1.08)
I would avoid any contact with tourists in my home town 2.05 (1.12) 4.01 (1.10)
Source: Author’s own survey data.

time between Period 1 and Period 2 could significantly predict perception of COVID-19 (β = 0.50, p <
.00), travel risk perception (β = 0.47, p < .00) and travel behaviour (β = 0.57, p < .00). For the influence
of sociodemographic variables, only significant results are reported. For Time Period 1, travel risk per-
ception could be significantly predicted by age (β = −0.12, p < .00) indicating that travel risk percep-
tion decreases with increasing age. In addition, travel frequency showed a significant influence on
travel risk perception (β = −0.11, p < .00) demonstrating that travel risk perception decreases
when travel frequency increases. For travel behaviour, age and travel frequency showed significant
influence in Time Period 1 indicating that the willingness to change or cancel travel plans increases
with age (β = 0.08, p < .02) but decreases with travel frequency (β = −0.16, p < .00). For Time Period 2,
results showed that for perception of COVID-19, age (β = 0.22, p < .00) and gender (β = 0.16, p < .03)
had a significant influence demonstrating that risk perception of COVID-19 was higher for female
than for male participants and increases with age.

Cluster analysis Period 1

Cophenetic correlation, a popular technique for evaluating hierarchical clustering was used to ident-
ify the ideal clustering method (Tan et al., 2006). Despite showing lower values than the Average
method, the coefficient indicated that Ward’s Method was the best method as it showed a
better balance of cases within the clusters. Therefore, Ward’s method was employed to classify par-
ticipants into groups based on the constructs perception of COVID-19, travel risk perception and
travel behaviour. In order to find the optimal number of clusters, internal validation measures
 CURRENT ISSUES IN TOURISM 7

Table 3. Linear regression.

Unstandardized Standardized
coefficients coefficients
Construct B Std. error β t p
Time Period 1 and 2a
Perception of COVID-19 1.17 0.06 0.50 20.07 .00
Travel risk perception 1.10 0.06 0.47 18.80 .00
Travel behaviour 1.33 0.06 0.57 24.18 .00
Time Period 1b
Travel risk perception
Age −0.01 0.00 −0.12 −3.79 .00
Travel frequency −0.11 0.04 −0.11 −3.25 .00
Travel behaviour
Age 0.00 0.00 0.08 2.32 .02
Travel frequency −0.16 0.03 −0.16 −4.79 .00
Time Period 2b
Perception of COVID-19
Age 0.01 0.00 0.22 2.99 .00
Travel behaviour
Gender 0.20 0.09 0.16 2.26 .03
a
Hierarchical Linear Regression of Time Period 1 to Time Period 2.
b
Linear Regression of sociodemographic variables on constructs.
Source: Author’s own survey data.

were used. Silhouette Scores, Calinski–Harabasz Index and Davies-Bouldin Index were analysed in
Python and determined a three-cluster solution in terms of interpretability, explanatory power
and parsimony.
ANOVA analysis found significant differences between all clusters regarding the constructs per-
ception of COVID-19, travel risk perception and travel behaviour (Table 4). Tamhane post-hoc test
revealed that cluster 1 ‘The Nervous’ showed a higher level of risk perception of COVID-19, travel
risk perception and travel behaviour than cluster 2 ‘The Reserved’ and cluster 3 ‘The Relaxed’ (p <
.01). Tamhane post-hoc test also revealed that cluster 3 ‘The Relaxed’ showed lower means in all
three constructs than the other clusters (p < .01). In addition, Chi-square was used to further charac-
terize the three clusters and to explore the association between the clusters, individual character-
istics, demographics and travel frequency (Table 5). However, significant sociodemographic
differences among the clusters were only found in the sample of Period 1 and can be explained
by the large sample size of sample 1 rather than a real effect.
Cluster 1: ‘The Nervous’ comprises 18% of the sample in Period 1. This cluster perceives the severity
of COVID-19 and travel risk perception as high and is willing to avoid travelling by changing or can-
celling travel plans (Table 4). Cluster 1 ‘The Nervous’ is on average 36 years old and travels mostly less
than five times per year.
Cluster 2: ‘The Reserved’ accounts for 60% of participants. The results show mean values around the
midpoint of the five-point Likert scale in all three constructs. Almost 50% of cluster 2 are 21–30 years
old. In addition, cluster 2 travels mostly three to five times a year.

Table 4. Summary of cluster analysis Period 1.

Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3
Construct Nervous Reserved Relaxed
(n = 1051) n = 191, 18% n = 628, 60% n = 232, 22% F p
Perception of COVID-19 3.48 (0.64) 2.32 (0.62) 1.55 (0.37) 586.29 .00
Travel risk perception 4.08 (0.51) 3.23 (0.57) 2.23 (0.41) 663.77 .00
Travel behaviour 3.49 (0.63) 2.28 (0.63) 1.41 (0.31) 688.07 .00
Source: Author’s own survey data.
8 L. NEUBURGER AND R. EGGER

Table 5. Clusters and individual characteristics Period 1.

Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3
Nervous Reserved Relaxed
n = 191 18% n = 628 60% n = 232 22% χ2 p
Gender 2.21 .70
Female 116 62.4 397 64.1 150 66.1
Male 68 36.6 220 35.5 76 33.5
Residence 3.59 .73
Austria 125 68.3 429 70.1 150 66.4
Germany 40 21.9 137 22.4 52 23
Switzerland 3 1.6 7 1.1 2 0.9
Other 15 8.2 39 6.4 22 9.7
Education 13.66 .62
No high school 15 8.2 47 7.6 22 9.7
High school 67 36.5 213 34.7 73 32.3
Some college 12 6.5 36 5.9 17 7.5
Undergraduate 42 22.8 157 25.6 50 22.1
Graduate 43 23.4 135 21.9 53 23.5
Other degree 5 2.7 26 4.2 11 4.9
Age 22.12 .00
16–20 19 9.9 42 6.7 5 2.2
21–30 71 37.2 289 46 83 35.8
31–40 33 17.3 114 18.2 54 23.3
41–50 37 19.4 100 15.9 54 23.3
51–60 13 6.8 53 8.4 26 11.2
61–70 7 3.7 12 1.9 4 1.7
Above 70 11 5.8 18 2.9 6 2.6
Travel frequency 16.90 .00
1–2 times/year 70 37.8 233 37.9 63 27.9
3–5 times/year 71 38.4 272 44.3 97 42.9
>5 times/year 44 23.8 109 17.8 66 29.2
Source: Author’s own survey data.

Cluster 3: ‘The Relaxed’ accounts for another 22% of the sample. ‘The Relaxed’ show the lowest
values in all three constructs below the midpoint of the five-point Likert scale. Cluster 3 is
between 40 and 60 years old and travels at least three times a year.

Cluster analysis Period 2

For Period 2, Ward method was employed according to the cophenetic correlation and a three-cluster
solution was determined based on Silhouette Scores, Calinski–Harabasz Index and Davies-Bouldin
Index. Following results from the ANOVA analysis, the three clusters form homogenous subsets
while significantly differing from each other regarding perception of COVID-19, travel risk perception
and travel behaviour (Table 6). No significant differences were found in the smaller sample of Period 2
regarding the three clusters and individual characteristics.
Tamhane post-hoc test revealed that cluster 1 ‘The Anxious’ showed the highest level of risk per-
ception of COVID-19, travel risk perception and travel behaviour (p < .01). Tamhane post-hoc test also
showed that cluster 3 ‘The Reserved’ showed the lowest means in all three constructs. However, the
lowest values in cluster 3 are still significantly higher than in Period 1.

Table 6. Summary of cluster analysis Period 2.

Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3
Construct Anxious Nervous Reserved
(n = 202) n = 132, 65% n = 43, 21% n = 27, 14% F p
Perception of COVID-19 4.17 (0.48) 2.84 (0.41) 2.77 (0.73) 161.72 0.00
Travel risk perception 4.48 (0.42) 4.37 (0.33) 3.15 (0.57) 111.88 0.00
Travel behaviour 4.40 (0.47) 4.06 (0.47) 2.63 (0.65) 140.09 0.00
Source: Author’s own survey data.
 CURRENT ISSUES IN TOURISM 9

Cluster 1: ‘The Anxious’ accounts for 65% of the sample. As seen in Table 6 the mean values of risk
perception of COVID-19, travel risk perception and travel behaviour almost reach the maximum of the
five-point Likert scale. The results show a significant increase of risk perception and intention to
change or cancel travel plans due to COVID-19 in only two weeks when comparing the clusters of
Period 1 and Period 2.
Cluster 2: ‘The Nervous’ accounts for 21% of participants. The means in all three constructs show
relatively high values in risk perception of COVID-19, travel risk perception and travel behaviour.
‘The Nervous’ in Period 2 do not perceive the risk of COVID-19 as high as the ‘The Anxious’ in
cluster 1 and the mean values of travel risk perception and intention to change travel behaviour
range between M≥4 and M≤4.5.
Cluster 3: ‘The Reserved’ shows similar values as cluster 2 ‘The Reserved’ in Period 1 and accounts for
14% of the sample. The mean values of perception of COVID-19 and travel behaviour show results
around the midpoint of the five-point Likert scale while the value of travel risk perception is
similar as in Period 1.

Discussion
This study examined the perception of COVID-19, travel risk perception and travel behaviour of tra-
vellers in the DACH region, two weeks before and immediately after COVID-19 was declared a pan-
demic. The first research question sought to understand the perception of COVID-19 before and after
the pandemic outbreak was confirmed. The study found that risk perception of COVID-19, travel risk
perception and the willingness to change or cancel travel plans significantly increased over the
period of two weeks. Increased travel risk perception during COVID-19 is consistent with previous
research about infectious disease outbreaks (Cahyanto et al., 2016; Lee et al., 2012; Leggat et al.,
2010; Pine & McKercher, 2004). The significant increase of both risk perception of COVID-19 and
travel risk perception can be attributed to the increase of confirmed cases from 95,289 worldwide
in Period 1 around March 4 when study 1 was conducted, to 242,445 cases worldwide around
March 19 when the study in Period 2 was conducted (ECDC, 2020).
In addition, travel restrictions and bans issued by 96% of countries worldwide (UNWTO, 2020f)
increased the subjective feeling of travel risk of tourists. The increase of risk perception towards
COVID-19 can also be explained by the amplified media coverage of exponential growth rate of
cases, death rates and other information focusing on COVID-19 on every media channel. In
other cases of health crises, previous research indicated that constant media coverage is one of
the most influential factors of increased risk perception (Cahyanto et al., 2016; McKercher &
Chon, 2004).
The intention to avoid or cancel travel during a pandemic such as COVID-19 is highly related to risk
perception to travel in general and especially to destinations with reported cases (Cahyanto et al.,
2016), increased perceived susceptibility to get infected by COVID-19 while travelling (De Zwart
et al., 2007) and self-efficacy leading to actions to mitigate any risk and avoid travel (Liao et al., 2010).
The second research question aimed to examine whether clusters could be identified among tour-
ists based on their perception of COVID-19, travel risk perception and travel behaviour. The results of
the cluster analysis identified different segments of travellers in the case of the pandemic outbreak of
COVID-19. The cluster analysis of Period 1 (March 1–4) revealed three distinctive clusters based on the
risk perception of COVID-19, travel risk perception and travel behaviour. Cluster 1 ‘The Nervous’ were
younger, travelled less and showed the highest risk perception of COVID-19, travel risk perception
and intention to change or cancel travel plans. Whereas travel risk perception was elevated for
cluster 2 ‘The Reserved’, risk perception of COVID-19 and the likelihood to change travel behaviour
were moderate at this first period of the pandemic outbreak. Cluster 3 ‘The Relaxed’ was older,
had more travel experience and showed the lowest values in risk perception of COVID-19, travel
risk perception and likelihood to change or avoid travel. Previous literature showed that past
travel experience has a high influence on travel behaviour (Pennington-Gray et al., 2011).
10 L. NEUBURGER AND R. EGGER

Furthermore, a higher perception of health risks during travel and a higher risk perception of con-
tracting a disease can lead to any kind of avoidance behaviour and thus, a higher likelihood to
change and avoid travel (Cahyanto et al., 2016; Pennington-Gray et al., 2011).
In the second period of the study (March 15–19), also three distinctive clusters have been ident-
ified. While two clusters (‘The Reserved’ and ‘The Nervous’) show similar results on all constructs in
both periods, the cluster ‘The Relaxed’ was only found in Period 1 and the cluster ‘the Anxious’
only in Period 2.
One of the most striking findings is the different distribution of clusters when comparing both
time periods. While in Period 1 the cluster ‘the Relaxed’ could be found with relatively low perception
of COVID-19 and travel risk perception, this cluster disappears in Period 2. The cluster with the lowest
values in Period 2 shows similar values as ‘the Reserved’ in Period 1. In addition, a new cluster appears
– ‘the Anxious’ showing mean values close to the maximum on the Likert scale. These results show
how travel risk perception can lead to travel anxiety in a short time. This is consistent with results from
other studies, demonstrating that the perception of health risks is negatively related with the percep-
tion of safety of a destination and can influence travellers’ travel intentions (Liu et al., 2016; Reisinger
& Mavondo, 2005). The pandemic outbreak of COVID-19 impacted tourists’ perception of travel and
will change the way people travel for indefinite time especially regarding pace, intensity and spon-
taneity (Lahood, 2020). DMOs should provide information and education about their risk reduction
measures to restore people’s confidence to travel again (Liu et al., 2016). In addition, destinations
and travel agencies can use virtual travel tools such as Virtual Reality to decrease anxieties and con-
cerns among their tourists (Guttentag, 2010).
Previous studies found a relationship between individual demographic characteristics such as
gender, age, lifestyle or cultural orientation, risk perception and travel behaviour (Brug et al., 2004;
Floyd & Pennington-Gray, 2004; Lepp & Gibson, 2003; Reisinger & Mavondo, 2005; Sönmez &
Graefe, 1998a). Furthermore, this study found significant differences for age, travel frequency and
gender. While travel risk perception increased with age, it decreased with travel frequency being con-
sistent with previous studies. Also, the influence of gender resulting in higher risk perceptions for
females was consistent with results of previous research (Floyd & Pennington-Gray, 2004; Lepp &
Gibson, 2003).

Conclusion
The pandemic outbreak of COVID-19 emerged in December 2019 in China and by March 2020
affected the whole world. The result of lockdowns and closures of international and national
borders can be seen in the global crisis and disruption within and beyond the tourism industry.
The objective of this study was to identify clusters of tourists based on their perception of COVID-
19, travel risk perception and travel behaviour. The two samples in this study consisting of travellers
from the DACH region provided valuable insights at two distinctive time periods during the COVID-19
outbreak and deepened the understanding of the relationship between risk perception and travel
behaviour. This study contributes in several ways to the academic literature of health crises, travel
risk perception and travel behaviour by classifying tourists based on their travel risk perception
during a pandemic and its influence on the change of their travel behaviour. The cluster analysis
found distinctive clusters and significant results at two points of time during the pandemic outbreak
and the comparison of results of both time periods showed an increase of risk perception over time.
From a practical standpoint, this study provides valuable data and consumer insights for desti-
nations and tourism organizations and supports the development of communication strategies for
the tourism industry post-COVID-19. Based on the results, several implications for the tourism indus-
try can be provided. Concerning communication strategies, tourism organizations mostly follow the
objectives of governments and health organizations to primarily reduce the community spread of the
virus. However, it is also important to focus on reducing tourists’ travel risk perception in order to
allow the industry to bounce back quicker once the threat of COVID-19 decreases. Therefore,
 CURRENT ISSUES IN TOURISM 11

travel media and any communication with travellers should not solely provide information that can
cause an increase of perceived travel risk (such as the number of cases and deaths) but also inform
about cancellation or refund policies and cover health and safety measures to ensure that tourists can
feel safe and ensured once travel restrictions are lifted. Furthermore, travel communication should
focus on inspiring tourists to travel and explore new places post COVID-19 (e.g. #traveltomorrow).
In addition, it is important to invest efforts into establishing long-lasting relationships rather than
short-haul sales.
Another implication for destinations is a higher focus on revitalizing and supporting domestic
tourism that is expected to recover first from the pandemic outbreak of COVID-19. For domestic
tourism it is also important to stress safety and health measures as well as any activities that make
tourists feel safer to travel and decrease their risk perception. However, the recovery of the
tourism industry from the consequences of the COVID-19 health crisis is unforeseeable and partially
depends on the rebound of the global economy (Prideaux et al., 2020).
There are several limitations that should be taken into account when interpreting the results of
this study. First, findings of this study are limited by its focus on prospective tourists from the
DACH region. Findings also are limited by the nature of two convenience samples from the same
sample frame collected from social media channels and e-mail listservs.
Based on the outcomes of this study, future research should aim for longitudinal studies or data
collection at multiple points of time during a pandemic outbreak. In addition, future studies should
compare results of this study with various cultural and geographical regions. This contributes to
better understand the long-term effect of infectious diseases on the change of risk perception and
travel behaviour over time.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

ORCID
Larissa Neuburger http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3267-4029
Roman Egger http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4888-6026

References
Amante, A., & Balmer, C. (2020, March 10). Italy in coronavirus lockdown as deaths soar and economy fades. https://www.
reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-italy/italy-in-coronavirus-lockdown-as-deaths-soar-and-economy-fades-
idUSKBN20X11D
Anzolin, E., Mason, J., & Nikolaeva, M. (2020, March 4). Canceled bookings, empty rooms: coronavirus takes toll on tourism.
Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-travel/canceled-bookings-empty-rooms-coronavirus-
takes-toll-on-tourism-idUSKBN20R2NX
The Austrian Parliament. (2020, March 15). Nationalrat beschließt umfassendes Maßnahmenpaket zur Bekämpfung der
Ausbreitung des Coronavirus: Parlamentskorrespondenz Nr. 263 vom 15.03.2020. https://www.parlament.gv.at/PAKT/
PR/JAHR_2020/PK0263/index.shtml
Beirman, D. (2003). Restoring tourism destinations in crisis: A strategic marketing approach. In R. L. Braithwaite, & R. W.
Braithwaite (Eds.), CAUTHE 2003: Riding the wave of tourism and hospitality research (pp. 1146–1150). Southern Cross
University.
Boholm, A. (1998). Comparative studies of risk perception: A review of twenty years of research. Journal of Risk Research, 1
(2), 135–163. https://doi.org/10.1080/136698798377231
Brewer, N. T., Chapman, G. B., Gibbons, F. X., Gerrard, M., McCaul, K. D., & Weinstein, N. D. (2007). Meta-analysis of the
relationship between risk perception and health behavior: The example of vaccination. Health Psychology, 26(2),
136–145. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-6133.26.2.136
Brewer, N. T., & Fazekas, K. I. (2007). Predictors of HPV vaccine acceptability: A theory-informed, systematic review.
Preventive Medicine, 45(2–3), 107–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2007.05.013
12 L. NEUBURGER AND R. EGGER

Brug, J., Aro, A. R., Oenema, A., De Zwart, O., Richardus, J. H., & Bishop, G. D. (2004). SARS risk perception, knowledge,
precautions, and information sources, the Netherlands. Emerging Infectious Diseases, 10(8), 1486. https://doi.org/10.
3201/eid1008.040283
Cahyanto, I., Wiblishauser, M., Pennington-Gray, L., & Schroeder, A. (2016). The dynamics of travel avoidance: The case of
Ebola in the US. Tourism Management Perspectives, 20, 195–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2016.09.004
Callaway, E., Cyranoski, D., Mallapaty, S., Stoye, E., & Tollefson, J. (2020). The coronavirus pandemic in five powerful charts.
Nature. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-00758-2
Carr, N. (2001). An exploratory study of gendered differences in young tourists’ perception of danger within London.
Tourism Management, 22(5), 565–570. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0261-5177(01)00014-0
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2020a, March 3). Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): Situation Summary.
Retrieved March 5, 2020, from https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-nCoV/summary.html
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2020b, March 19). Global COVID-19 Outbreak Notice. Retrieved March 21,
2020, from https://www.nc.cdc.gov/travel/notices/alert/coronavirus-global
Chapman, V. L., & Skinner, C. S. (2008). The health belief model. In K. Glanz, B. K. Rimer, & K. Viswanath (Eds.), Health behav-
ior and health education: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 45–65). Jossey-Bass.
Cortina, J. M. (1993). What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. Journal of Applied Psychology,
78(1), 98. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.78.1.98
Darlak, J., Lund, T., Daniel, A. C., & Eluri, K. C. (2020, March 3). Airlines suspend flights due to coronavirus outbreak. Reuters.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-health-airlines-factbox/factbox-airlines-suspend-flights-due-to-coronavirus-
outbreak-idUSKBN20Q2XA
De Zwart, O., Veldhuijzen, I. K., Elam, G., Aro, A. R., Abraham, T., Bishop, G. D., Richardus, J. H., & Brug, J. (2007). Avian
influenza risk perception, Europe and Asia. Emerging Infectious Diseases, 13(2), 290. https://doi.org/10.3201/eid1302.
060303
ECDC. (2020, March 29). COVID-19 – All Reported Cases. Retrieved March 29, 2020, from https://qap.ecdc.europa.eu/public/
extensions/COVID-19/COVID-19.html
The Federal Council. (2020, March 16). Coronavirus: Federal Council declares ‘extraordinary situation’ and introduces more
stringent measures. https://www.admin.ch/gov/en/start/documentation/media-releases.msg-id-78454.html
Floyd, M. F., & Pennington-Gray, L. (2004). Profiling risk perceptions of tourists. Annals of Tourism Research, 31(4), 1051–
1054. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2004.03.011
Floyd, D. L., Prentice-Dunn, S., & Rogers, R. W. (2000). A meta-analysis of research on protection motivation theory. Journal
of Applied Social Psychology, 30(2), 407–429. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2000.tb02323.x
Gössling, S., Scott, D., & Hall, C. M. (2020). Pandemics, tourism and global change: A rapid assessment of COVID-19. Journal
of Sustainable Tourism, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2020.1758708
Guttentag, D. A. (2010). Virtual reality: Applications and implications for tourism. Tourism Management, 31(5), 637–651.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2009.07.003
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2006). Multivariate data analysis. Pearson.
International Monetary Fund. (2019, October). World Economic Outlook Database October 2019. https://www.imf.org/
external/pubs/ft/weo/2019/02/weodata/index.aspx
Kiefhaber, E. (2018). Sustainability in small and medium-sized enterprises: An empirical investigation of drivers on individual,
organizational, and network level. Nomos.
Lahood, B. (2020, June). Destination marketing is not just about the recovery – it’s now a long game. Phocuswire. https://
www.phocuswire.com/Destination-marketing-coronavirus-long-game?oly_enc_id=6344G1891512G4Z
Lee, C. K., Song, H. J., Bendle, L. J., Kim, M. J., & Han, H. (2012). The impact of non-pharmaceutical interventions for 2009
H1N1 influenza on travel intentions: A model of goal-directed behavior. Tourism Management, 33(1), 89–99. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2011.02.006
Leggat, P. A., Brown, L. H., Aitken, P., & Speare, R. (2010). Level of concern and precaution taking among Australians
regarding travel during pandemic (H1N1) 2009: Results from the 2009 Queensland social survey. Journal of Travel
Medicine, 17(5), 291–295. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8305.2010.00445.x
Lepp, A., & Gibson, H. (2003). Tourist roles, perceived risk and international tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 30(3),
606–624. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-7383(03)00024-0
Liao, Q., Cowling, B., Lam, W. T., Ng, M. W., & Fielding, R. (2010). Situational awareness and health protective responses to
pandemic influenza A (H1N1) in Hong Kong: A cross-sectional study. PLoS One, 5, 10. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.
pone.0013350
Liu, B., Schroeder, A., & Pennington-Gray, L. (2016). Empirically testing the influence of travel safety concerns: Examining
alternative models. Tourism Travel and Research Association: Advancing Tourism Research Globally. http://
scholarworks.umass.edu/ttra/2016/Academic_Papers_Visual/9
Maser, B., & Weiermair, K. (1998). Travel decision-making: From the vintage point of perceived risk and information pre-
ferences. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 7(4), 107–121. https://doi.org/10.1300/J073v07n04_06
McKercher, B., & Chon, K. (2004). The over-reaction to SARS and the collapse of Asian tourism. Annals of Tourism Research,
31(3), 716–719. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2003.11.002
 CURRENT ISSUES IN TOURISM 13

Moreira, P. (2008). Stealth risks and catastrophic risks: On risk perception and crisis recovery strategies. Journal of Travel &
Tourism Marketing, 23(2–4), 15–27. https://doi.org/10.1300/J073v23n02_02
Park, K., & Reisinger, Y. (2010). Differences in the perceived influence of natural disasters and travel risk on international
travel. Tourism Geographies, 12(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616680903493621
Pennington-Gray, L., Schroeder, A., & Kaplanidou, K. K. (2011). Examining the influence of past travel experience, general
web searching behaviour and risk perception on future travel intentions. International Journal of Safety and Security in
Tourism, 1(1), 64–92.
Pine, R., & McKercher, B. (2004). The impact of SARS on Hong Kong’s tourism industry. International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, 16(2), 139–143. https://doi.org/10.1108/09596110410520034
Pizam, A., & Fleischer, A. (2002). Severity versus frequency of acts of terrorism: Which has a larger impact on tourism
demand? Journal of Travel Research, 40(3), 337–339. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287502040003011
Prideaux, B., Thompson, M., & Pabel, A. (2020). Lessons from COVID-19 can prepare global tourism for the economic trans-
formation needed to combat climate change. Tourism Geographies, 22(3), 667–678. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616688.
2020.1762117
Reisinger, Y., & Mavondo, F. (2005). Travel anxiety and intentions to travel internationally: Implications of travel risk per-
ception. Journal of Travel Research, 43(3), 212–225. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287504272017
Reuters. (2020, March 15). Lockdowns and entry bans imposed around the world to fight coronavirus. World News. https://
www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus/lockdowns-and-entry-bans-imposed-around-the-world-to-fight-
coronavirus-idUSKBN21208S
Richter, L. (2003). International tourism and its global health consequences. Journal of Travel Research, 41(4), 340–347.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287503041004002
Rittichainuwat, B. N., & Chakraborty, G. (2009). Perceived travel risks regarding terrorism and disease: The case of
Thailand. Tourism Management, 30(3), 410–418. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2008.08.001
Rogers, R. W. (1975). A protection motivation theory of fear appeals and attitude changed. Journal of Psychology, 91(1),
93–114. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.1975.9915803
Schroeder, A., Pennington-Gray, L., Kaplanidou, K., & Zhan, F. (2013). Destination risk perceptions among U.S. Residents
for London as the host city of the 2012 Summer Olympic Games. Tourism Management, 38, 107–119. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.tourman.2013.03.001
Schusterschitz, C., Schütz, H., & Wiedemann, P. M. (2010). Looking for a safe haven after fancy thrills: A psychometric
analysis of risk perception in alpine tourist destinations. Journal of Risk Research, 13(3), 379–398. https://doi.org/10.
1080/13669870903134949
Seddighi, H. R., Nuttall, M. W., & Theocharous, A. L. (2001). Does cultural background of tourists influence the destination
choice? An empirical study with special reference to political instability. Tourism Management, 22(2), 181–191. https://
doi.org/10.1016/S0261-5177(00)00046-7
Sjöberg, L., Moen, B. E., & Rundmo, T. (2004). Explaining risk perception. An evaluation of the psychometric paradigm in
risk perception research. Rotunde, 84, 1–33.
Skift. (2020, March 6). Coronavirus and the travel industry. https://skift.com/coronavirus-and-travel/?
Sönmez, S. F. (1998). Tourism, terrorism, and political instability. Annals of Tourism Research, 25(2), 416–456. https://doi.
org/10.1016/S0160-7383(97)00093-5
Sönmez, S. F., & Graefe, A. R. (1998a). Influence of terrorism risk on foreign tourism decisions. Annals of Tourism Research,
25(1), 112–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-7383(97)00072-8
Sönmez, S. F., & Graefe, A. R. (1998b). Determining future travel behavior from past travel experience and perceptions of
risk and safety. Journal of Travel Research, 37(2), 171–177. https://doi.org/10.1177/004728759803700209
Tan, P., Steinbach, M., & Kumar, V. (2006). Introduction to data mining. Pearson.
United Nations World Tourism Organization. (2019). International tourism highlights. 2019 Edition. UNWTO, Madrid.
https://doi.org/10.18111/9789284421152
United Nations World Tourism Organization. (2020b, March 6). Tourism and coronavirus disease (COVID-19). Retrieved
March 8, 2020, from https://www.unwto.org/sustainable-development/resilience-of-tourism
United Nations World Tourism Organization. (2020c, March 26). International tourist arrivals could fall by 20-30% in 2020.
https://www.unwto.org/news/international-tourism-arrivals-could-fall-in-2020
United Nations World Tourism Organization. (2020d). All countries: outbound tourism: departures 1995–2018 (01.2020).
Tourism Statistics (1). https://www.e-unwto.org/doi/suppl/10.5555/unwtotfb0000290019952018202001/suppl_file/
0000290019952018202001.xlsx
United Nations World Tourism Organization. (2020e, May 7). International tourist numbers could fall 60-80% in 2020.
https://www.unwto.org/news/covid-19-international-tourist-numbers-could-fall-60-80-in-2020
United Nations World Tourism Organization. (2020f, April 17). Covid-19 response: 96% of global destinations impose travel
restrictions. UNWTO Reports. https://www.unwto.org/news/covid-19-response-travel-restrictions
Wahlberg, A. A., & Sjöberg, L. (2000). Risk perception and the media. Journal of Risk Research, 3(1), 31–50. https://doi.org/
10.1080/136698700376699
Weinstein, N. (1988). The precaution adoption process. Health Psychology, 7(4), 355–386. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-
6133.7.4.355
14 L. NEUBURGER AND R. EGGER

Wilks, J., & Moore, S. (2003). Tourism risk management for the Asia Pacific region: An authoritative guide for managing crises
and disasters. APEC International Centre for Sustainable Tourism (AICST).
The World Bank. (2020). World development indicators. Retrieved March 8, 2020, from https://databank.worldbank.org/
source/world-development-indicators
World Health Organization. (2020a, March 5). Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) outbreak. Retrieved March 8, 2020, from
https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019
World Health Organization. (2020b, March 18). Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) situation report – 58. https://www.
who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/situation-reports/20200318-sitrep-58-COVID-19.pdf?sfvrsn=20876712_2
Yanni, E. A., Marano, N., & Han, P. (2010). Knowledge, attitudes, and practices of US travelers to Asia regarding seasonal
influenza and H5N1 avian influenza prevention measures. Journal of Travel Medicine, 17(6), 374–381. https://doi.org/
10.1111/j.1708-8305.2010.00458.x
Yavas, U. (1990). Correlates of vacation travel: Some empirical evidence. Journal of Professional Services Marketing, 5(2), 3–
18. https://doi.org/10.1300/J090v05n02_02