Deng 2022 - Cultural Risk & International Tourism (Journal - Pone.0278518)

PLOS ONE
RESEARCH ARTICLE
The moderating role of informatization

between country risks and international
tourism: A cross-country panel analysis
Zhaoming Deng1,2, Meijing Zhou ID3,4*, Qiong Xu5*
1 Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing,
China, 2 State Key Laboratory of Resources and Environmental Information System, Chinese Academy of
Sciences, Beijing, China, 3 College of Humanities and Social Sciences, Beijing Institute of Petrochemical
Technology, Beijing, China, 4 Beijing Academy of Safety Engineering and Technology, Beijing, China,
a1111111111 5 Business School, Central South University, Changsha, China
a1111111111
a1111111111 * 0620221002@bipt.edu.cn (MZ); 201601032@csu.edu.cn (QX)
a1111111111
a1111111111
Abstract
Informatization plays an increasingly important role in the tourism industry, while its effec-
tiveness in alleviating tourism risks remains to be verified. This research aims to explore the
OPEN ACCESS
effects of country risks on the international tourism and the moderating role of informatiza-
Citation: Deng Z, Zhou M, Xu Q (2022) The
tion between the two. This study firstly measures country risks based on the ICRG data-
moderating role of informatization between country
risks and international tourism: A cross-country base, quantifies international tourism by tourism revenue, tourism expenditure, and tourist
panel analysis. PLoS ONE 17(12): e0278518. arrival, and calculates informatization level from informatization facilities, informatization
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278518
applications, and informatization skills. A dynamic SYS-GMM model is then adopted to ver-
Editor: Marı́a del Carmen Valls Martı́nez, University ify the research hypotheses based on the panel data of 138 countries from 2000 to 2019.
of Almeria: Universidad de Almeria, SPAIN
The research results show that the composite country risk, political risk, economic risk, and
Received: August 3, 2022 financial risk all show a negative impact on the international tourism indicators regardless
Accepted: November 17, 2022 of different time periods, regions, or income levels. However, the effects are more obvious
before the global financial crisis in 2008 and regions and countries with lower income levels.
Published: December 16, 2022
In addition, informatization is found to positively mitigate the adverse impacts of country
Copyright: © 2022 Deng et al. This is an open
risks on international tourism, especially for economic and financial risks. The research find-
access article distributed under the terms of the
Creative Commons Attribution License, which ings indicate the risk hedge potential of informatization in the tourism industry, which pro-
permits unrestricted use, distribution, and vides a profound reference for destination risk management.
reproduction in any medium, provided the original
author and source are credited.
Data Availability Statement: All data are present

within the manuscript and the Supporting
information files.
Introduction
Funding: This work was supported by China
Postdoctoral Science Foundation (2019M660783, Tourism has become a pillar industry of the world economy [1]. The global tourism revenue
to Zhaoming Deng), China Postdoctoral Science contributed 6.6–6.9% to the world’s GDP from 2016 to 2019 [2]. However, tourism is quite
Foundation (2018M641457, to Fuyuan Wang) and vulnerable to external risks, such as terrorist attacks, natural disasters, climate change, financial
National Natural Science Foundation of China
and economic crises [3], and pandemics. The outbreak of SARS in 2003 made the tourism
(41901181, to Fuyuan Wang). The funders had no
role in study design, data collection and analysis,
industry in China, Hong Kong, Singapore, and Vietnam lose 3 million jobs and more than $20
decision to publish, or preparation of the billion, and the rest of Asia saw visitor numbers drop by 70% or more [4]. International tourist
manuscript. arrival dropped by 4% in 2009 due to the global financial crisis [5]. In addition, affected by
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278518 December 16, 2022 1 / 26

PLOS ONE The moderating role of informatization between country risks and international tourism
Competing interests: The authors have declared COVID-19, the share of global tourism revenue in the world’s GDP declined to 3.7% and 3.8%
that no competing interests exist. in 2020 and 2021, respectively [2], and international tourist arrival decreased by 71%, 71%,
and 54% in 2020, 2021 and 2022 compared to 2019, separately [6].
As a long-distance and cross-cultural travel, international tourism is greatly influenced by
risks, mainly including terrorism, war and political instability, health issues, and crime [7].
After the outbreak of major financial crises, such as the Asian financial crisis in 1997, the
impacts of economic and financial risks on tourism started to receive attention from academ-
ics [8]. Generally, scholars have qualitatively analyzed the adverse impacts of these risks on
tourism development [9–12], or quantitatively testified the relationship between these risks
and tourism growth indicators through surveys [11], case studies [13], and econometric
modeling [14–17]. Country risk (CR), a comprehensive expression of political, economic, and
financial risks of a country, has become a new channel to explore the impacts of risks on tour-
ism. In particular, research has been facilitated by the availability of CR data covering time
series from multiple countries [18–20]. Among all the studies, most of them have explored the
effects of CRs on tourism in a certain country or region, and analysis at a global scale is rela-
tively lacking in the research field. In addition, the impacts of different risk types, such as
political risk (PR), economic risk (ER), and financial risk (FR), on various tourism growth
indicators, such as tourism revenue (TR), tourism expenditure (TE) and tourist arrival (TA),
have been ignored in previous research. Most scholars have only considered the unilateral
impacts of risks on TA or TE, ignoring the overall measurement of the risk effects [21].
Meanwhile, risk management at destinations has been a hot topic given the severe results of
tourism risks, including risk management principles and procedures [22], financial hedging
strategies towards climate risk [23], authoritative guide for managing crises and disasters [24],
management model for specifying risk sources [25], management mechanism and techniques
for disaster risk [26, 27], and risk management strategies for adventure tourism [28, 29], etc.
Thanks to the high integration of informatization and tourism, the comprehensive benefits of
tourism have been significantly improved. In recent years, “smart tourism” and “Internet
+ tourism” have become new models of tourism development [30, 31]. It is well-documented
that the development of informatization has brought new opportunities for tourism [32, 33].
On the one hand, informatization has improved tourism efficiency by enriching the tourist
experience, activating the potential tourism market, and promoting the rapid growth of tourist
numbers and tourism consumption levels. On the other hand, informatization has expanded
the scale of publicity in the tourism industry, which contributes to the construction of a com-
prehensive and intelligent tourism service system, thereby strengthening the tourism indus-
try’s ability to withstand risks. Informatization plays a significant role in supporting and
safeguarding tourism industry against risks, as well as enables the tourism industry to turn
risks into opportunities [34]. The positive role of informatization in tourism risk management
has already been verified [35, 36]. But few scholars have explored the risk mitigation effects of
informatization in the tourism industry.
To address the above research gaps, this study adopts an international perspective to exam-
ine and compare the impacts of different risk types on various tourism indicators in different
countries and regions, thereby revealing the temporal and spatial differences in impact. Addi-
tionally, this study introduces informatization as a risk hedge measure to analyze the mitiga-
tion mechanism between external risks and tourism growth, thus providing practical
implications for destination risk management. The framework of this paper is as follows. Sec-
tion 2 proposes research hypotheses based on existing theories and literature review. Section 3
describes the research data and methods. Section 4 presents the empirical analysis results of
the impacts of CRs on international tourism. Section 5 illustrates the moderating effect results.
And section 6 discusses and summarizes the research findings.

Theoretical foundation and research hypotheses

Theory of planned behavior
According to the theory of planned behavior (TPB), people’s behavioral intentions and actual
behaviors are influenced by three kinds of beliefs, including the beliefs about the possible
results of an action (behavioral beliefs, BB), beliefs about the normative expectations of others
(normative beliefs, NB), and beliefs about the factors that may promote or impede the behav-
ioral performance (control beliefs, CB) [37]. Further, BB generates people’s attitudes towards
an action, NB produces people’s perceived social pressure about whether to perform an action,
and CB leads to people’s perceived ability to perform a given behavior [38]. Generally, the
greater the three beliefs, the stronger people’s intentions to perform the behavior, and the
more likely the planned behavior to happen [37]. TPB has a wide range of applications in tour-
ism, leisure, and hospitality management, and risk management is one of the most important
research contexts [39]. Within the TPB framework, perceived risk or uncertainty negatively
impacts travel intentions by changing people’s travel attitude and perceived behavioral control
[40]. In this sense, CRs, consisting of PR, ER, and FR, will significantly reduce people’s travel
frequency. When a destination encounters CR, people will perceive personal risk or economic
loss before making the travel decision and probably cancel the travel plan. Meanwhile, they
will be uncertain about whether they can ensure their personal safety and property safety dur-
ing the journey. The relationships between perceived risk, perceived uncertainty, and visit
intention based on TPB are illustrated in Fig 1.
Risk perception attitude framework

The risk perception attitude framework (RPAF) explains people’s reactions to risks based on
their perceived risk level and efficacy belief level (Fig 2). According to the framework, efficacy
belief and risk perception level significantly affect individuals’ visit intentions [41]. Therefore,
destinations need to reduce tourists’ risk perceptions and improve their efficacy beliefs to
increase TA. In the internet information era, destinations’ informatization level greatly con-
tributes to managing tourists’ risk perception and efficacy belief [41]. On the one hand, a high
informatization level helps spread related information, which increases the transparency of
risk events, thereby facilitating tourists’ decision- making before visits and crisis management
Fig 1. The relationships between perceived risk, perceived uncertainty, and visit intention based on TPB. Source: Modified
from Quintal, Lee [40].
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278518.g001

Fig 2. Risk perception attitude framework. Source: Chisty, Islam [44].

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278518.g002
during visits [42]. On the other hand, information searching is one of the important ways for
tourists to prevent risks and reduce uncertainties [43]. Destinations’ high informatization level
enables tourists to obtain valid and timely information, thus improving their self-efficacy in
dealing with risks or uncertainties. In this way, informatization plays an important moderating
role between risks and visiting behaviors.
Hypotheses formulation
Based on TPB, RPAF, and previous literature, this study proposes the following hypotheses.
PR directly threatens the personal safety of tourists, leading to a reduction in TA and travel
time [21, 45]. The destructive impacts of political events (e.g., terrorist attacks and conflicts)
on tourism have been widely verified [11, 31, 46]. Frequent PR can damage the image of tourist
destinations and generate negative publicity [47, 48]. Conflicts adversely determine the percep-
tions of international tourists about a destination [49] and decreases tourist visits [50]. Gener-
ally, tourists change their destination choices or even abandon their travel plans under risky
conditions [51]. Meanwhile, a turbulent political environment could cause a large number of
service providers and operators in tourism industry to suspend business activities [52], thereby
hindering the tourism development [53, 54]. Generally, tourism growth and development are
largely dependent on a risk-free and politically stable environment [55]. Therefore, destina-
tions that are politically unstable and/or directly involved in terrorist activities generally see a
decline in visitor numbers and tourism receipts [41].

Based on the above literature, the following research hypotheses are proposed.
H1: PR has a negative impact on TR.
H2: PR has a negative impact on TE.
H3: PR has a negative impact on TA.
Tourism is a comprehensive industry that integrates restaurants, hotels, transportation,
traveling, shopping, and entertainment, which is strongly dependent on the external economic
environment. Therefore, an increase in ER brings uncertainty to the supporting environment
of tourism, which reduces tourist numbers and TE [56]. ER is believed to be part of tourist
destinations, which is negatively correlated with TE [57]. In addition, ER increases the transac-
tion cost and internal management fees of tourism operators, which indirectly reduces TR
[58]. From the tourist perspective, daily consumption depends on disposable income and
expectations of future changes in risky economic conditions [17]. Since tourism belongs to
non-necessary consumer goods, individuals prefer to cut tourism expenses or choose domestic
travel instead of international travel in the face of an economic crisis [59, 60]. As a result, inter-
national TA, TE, and revenue are negatively affected by economic crises [16]. The adverse
impacts of the economic crisis on tourism development have been extensively confirmed by
existing studies [61–65].
Based on the above research, this paper proposes the following hypotheses.
H4: ER has a negative impact on TR.
H5: ER has a negative impact on TE.
H6: FR has a negative impact on TA.
Tourism is an international trade activity. The occurrence of FR increases the uncertainty
of a country’s trading environment and production cost, which reduces tourism operators’
confidence to invest, thus negatively affecting the scale of tourism operations and tourism
development level [17]. For tourists, affordability is one of the prerequisites for traveling. Simi-
lar to the economic crisis, when faced with FR, tourists tend to reduce travel frequency and
control TE [66]. Chan [67] verifies that the financial crisis seriously threatens Macau’s tourism
industry. Sio-Chong and So [8] conclude that FR poses a greater threat on tourism than non-
financial risks. The negative association between the financial crisis and tourism development
has been verified by copious literature [67–71].
Based on the above studies, the following research hypotheses are made in the current
paper.
H7: FR has a negative impact on TR.
H8: FR has a negative impact on TE.
H9: FR has a negative impact on TA.
The penetration of information and communication technology (ICT) has improved the
level of tourism informatization, which provides more opportunities for the tourism industry
to resist CR. On the one hand, informatization accelerates the dissemination of risk informa-
tion, which enables tourists to cope with risks in advance or in time, thereby reducing the loss
of tourist numbers. In addition, the government can scientifically configure tourism flow
based on enough information, thereby extending the buffer time of risk mitigation and lower-
ing tourism economic losses. Brown [72] found that broadcasting and media affect tourists’
emotions and enhance tourists’ awareness of negative events at destinations. On the other

hand, the tourism industry can use ICT to transform risks into unique advantageous tourism
resources, thereby innovating tourism business models (e.g., smart tour guides and online vis-
its) and increasing the added value of risks [35]. Mandal and Dubey [36] confirmed the posi-
tive role of tourism IT adoption in promoting tourism supply chain resilience. concluded that
the development of ICTs promoted international tourism.
Based on the above analyses, this article proposes the following hypotheses.
H10: Informatization mitigates the negative impact of CRs on TR.
H11: Informatization mitigates the negative impact of CRs on TE.
H12: Informatization mitigates the negative impact of CRs on TA.
Data and methods

Explained variables
Tourism is the sum of various economic activities and economic phenomena caused by tour-
ism activities [18]. TR, TE, and TA are often recognized as the three major tourism indicators
[18, 73]. TR is the total monetary income that a tourist destination obtains through the sale of
tourism goods and services, which reflects the overall scale and development level of the tour-
ism industry [74, 75]. TE is a currency form that reflects tourists’ consumption level for tour-
ism goods and services, which is reflected by TA and unit tourist expenditure [76, 77]. TA
refers to the tourist flow in a tourism destination, which is calculated by the number of tourists
and the number of trips per capita [78, 79]. TR, TE, and TA focus on the development level,
consumption level, and flow scale of the tourism industry, respectively. This paper uses TR,
TE, and TA to characterize a country’s tourism. The data mainly come from the World Bank.
Independent variables
CR indicates the possibility that a sovereign state or a borrower in a particular country fails to
repay foreign lenders, and/or investors, and CR assessment aims primarily to predict payment
problems for sovereign borrowers [19]. Among all the evaluation databases, ICRG is the most
widely used one for measuring CRs, which contains monthly indexes of 146 countries from
1984 to 2020. ICRG comprehensively evaluates CRs from 22 indicators in three dimensions
(i.e., PR, ER, and FR). PR is measured by 12 indicators involving both political and social
aspects, including government stability, socioeconomic conditions, investment profile, inter-
nal conflict, external conflict, corruption, military in politics, religious tensions, law and order,
ethnic tensions, democratic accountability, and bureaucracy quality; ER reflects a country’s
economic status by investigating its GDP per head, real GDP growth, annual inflation rate,
budget balance as a percentage of GDP, and current account as a percentage of GDP; FR esti-
mates a country’s financing ability to pay its debt officially, commercially and in trade by cal-
culating its foreign debt as a percentage of GDP, foreign debt service as a percentage of exports
of goods and services, current account as a percentage of exports of goods and services, net
international liquidity as months of import cover, and exchange rate stability [80]. In terms of
evaluation scores, the composite CR ranges from 0 to 100, totaling 50% of PR (0–100), ER (0–
50), and FR (0–50). The higher the score, the lower the risk.
Moderate variable
Following the studies of Gretzel [35], Bris, Pawlak [81], and Hong, Thakuriah [82], this paper
evaluates a country’s informatization level (INF) from three dimensions of informatization

Table 1. Informatization index system.

Variable Category Indicators
Informatization Information facilities (40.6%)a Information of the world (7.0%)a
Mobile phone ownership (10.7%)a
Computer ownership (10.8%)a
Average international internet broadband of users (12.1%)a
Number of internet users per 100 residents (13.1%)a
a
Information application (40.1%) Number of fixed internet users per 100 residents (8.1%)a
Number of mobile internet users per 100 residents (10.9%)a
Internet development speed (8.0%)a
a
Information skills (19.3%) Adult literacy (5.4%)a
Number of junior high school enrollment (7.4%)a
Number of high school enrollment (6.5%)a
a
the values in the brackets are the weight of the indicators.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278518.t001
facilities, informatization applications, and informatization skills (Table 1). Among the three
dimensions, fixed telephone ownership rate, mobile phone ownership rate, computer owner-
ship rate, and user internet average broadband are used to characterize information facilities.
The data mainly come from the International Telecommunication Union. Informatization
applications are evaluated by internet penetration rate, fixed Internet penetration rate, mobile
informatization fixed broadband users, and the population using the Internet. The data mainly
come from the World Bank. The adult literacy rate, junior high school enrollment rate, and
high school enrollment rate that measure the informatization skills mainly come from the
World Bank and Bloomberg database. The weight of each index is obtained based on the fuzzy
analytic hierarchy process and the importance of each index. First, all the indicators are stan-
dardized to reduce the dimensional difference of the original data as formula (1).
... rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
0 Xi Xi 1 Pn 1 Pn � �2
Xi ¼ ; Xi ¼ X ; S ¼ X X ð1Þ
Si n j¼1 ij i n 1 j¼1 ij i
Secondly, the informatization of each country was calculated according to the entropy
method as formula (2).
Pn �P �
m
INF ¼ i 1 Yi Y X
j¼1 i ij ð2Þ
Where Xij is the standardized value of the j indicator of the i category, Yij is the weight of the j
indicator of the i category, Yi is the weight of the i category, n is the number of categories, and
m is the number of indicators under each category.
Control variables
Opening-up level (OPL). The improvement of the opening degree to the outside world not
only provides more convenient and preferential travel conditions for tourists, but also broad-
ens trade channels for the transnational investment of tourism enterprises. Therefore, there is
a positive correlation between OPL and tourism [58]. OPL is evaluated by the proportion of
total imports and exports of goods in GDP, with data from the World Bank.
Tourism resource endowment (TRE). Tourism resources are the attraction base of tourist
destinations and important sources of TR. In general, the richer the tourism resources, the

easier for a destination to attract tourists, which is conducive to increasing TR. Therefore, TRE
shows a positive impact on tourism development [83]. This article uses the number of world
heritage sites in a country to represent TRE, and the data mainly come from the World Heri-
tage Center of UNESCO.
Exchange rate (EX). The fluctuation of EX directly affects the demand for tourism. Various
countries use exchange rate to adjust the supply and demand of tourism. When the exchange
rate of a tourist destination rises, the currency value of the tourist source country depreciates,
and the purchasing ability of tourists decreases, thereby reducing the tourism demand. On the
contrary, when the exchange rate of a tourist destination drops, the currency value of the tour-
ist source country appreciates, and the purchasing ability of tourists increases, which stimu-
lates the tourism demand. Therefore, the exchange rate is negatively correlated with tourism
[84]. In this paper, EX is calculated by the convertible local currency of one USD, where real
price processing refers to [85], and the influence of relative price is excluded. The data are
mainly from the World Bank.
Economic development level (EDL). EDL is an important foundation for a country’s tour-
ism development. From the demand side, tourism belongs to a high-level demand, which only
occurs when economic development reaches a certain level. From the supply side, a higher
economic development level helps provide better supporting facilities and services for tourism
[83]. Therefore, EDL is a positive predictor of tourism. This article uses GDP per capita
(PGDP) to characterize EDL, which considers the relative price of both a tourist destination
and a tourist source. The data come from the World Bank.
By matching various index databases, the paper selects the intersection of each database,
eliminates the outliers, and fills the missing data to construct a panel data for 138 countries
from 2000 to 2019. The countries cover the five continents (i.e., Asia, Europe, Africa, America,
and Oceania), and include high-income, middle-income, and low-income countries. In these
countries, the population and GDP account for 95% and 97% of the world’s total, respectively;
the tourist number is 94% of the world’s total population, and the TR accounts for 96% of the
world’s total. The descriptive statistics of the variables are shown in Table 2. The results show
that among the three international tourism indicators, the average values of TR and TE are
close, but TR fluctuates more wildly; TA has both the least average value and fluctuation.
Among the four risk indexes, FR has the highest mean value and standard deviation, and the
Table 2. Descriptive statistical results of the variables.

Variables Unit Obs Mean Std. Dev Max Min
Tourism revenue (lnTR)a $ 2760 21.110 2.136 26.194 11.513
Tourism expenditure (lnTE)a $ 2760 21.010 1.978 25.929 15.425
Tourist arrival (lnTA)a person 2760 14.445 1.821 18.928 8.430
a
Country risk (lnCR) -- 2760 3.352 0.590 4.174 2.031
Political risk (lnPR)a -- 2760 3.423 0.453 4.233 1.365
Economic risk (lnER)a -- 2760 4.159 0.090 4.537 3.601
Financial risk (lnFR)a -- 2760 8.569 1.564 11.685 1.556
Informatization (lnINF)a -- 2760 3.022 1.307 4.612 0.001
Opening-up level (lnOPL)a -- 2760 3.606 0.615 5.438 0.095
Tourism resource endowment (TRE) -- 2760 1.899 0.740 4.127 0.693
Exchange rate (ER) -- 2760 3.132 2.551 10.789 0.000
Economic development Level (ln PGDP)a $ 2760 8.571 1.556 11.685 4.718
a
ln denotes the data of the variable are natural logarithm.

composite CR has the smallest average value. Informatization has a moderate mean value and
volatility. Among all the control variables, the economic development level has the largest
mean value and the second greatest standard deviation; tourism resource endowment has the
smallest average value and the second smallest standard deviation; the opening-up level has
the minimum fluctuations and the second largest mean value.
Methods
System GMM model
Compared with other general linear methods, the generalized method of moment (GMM) not
only deals with the endogenous problem, but also considers the hysteresis effect with good
robustness [86]. Specifically, GMM takes the lag term of the core independent variable as an
explanatory variable, thereby eliminating fixed effects. The difference GMM (DIF-GMM) and
system GMM (SYS-GMM) models are both designed for panel data with “large N, small T”,
which means much more individuals than time periods [86]. Compared with DIF-GMM,
SYS-GMM overcomes the weak instrumental variable problem, thereby solving the endogene-
ity problem better, and improving the efficiency of estimation [87–89]. Because of these supe-
riorities in dealing with dynamic panel data, SYS-GMM has been widely used in economic
modeling analyses [90–94]. The dataset in this study covers 138 countries and 20 years, which
is the typical “large N, small T” panel data. In addition, the impacts of external uncertainty on
tourism are profound and lasting, leading to a lag effect. Tiwari, Das [95] believe that both PR
and ER have significant lagging effects on tourists. Therefore, this paper employs the
SYS-GMM model to conduct empirical analyses.
The formulas of the SYS-GMM model in this paper are seen in formulas (3) to (6).
lnTRit =lnTEit =lnTAit ¼ a0 þ a1 lnTRit 1 =lnTEit 1 =lnTAit 1 þ a2 lnCRit þ a3 lnOPLit
ð3Þ
þa4 lnTREit þ a5 EXit þ a6 PGDPit þ li þ mt þ εit
lnTRit =lnTEit =lnTAit ¼ a0 þ a1 lnTRit 1 =lnTEit 1 =lnTAit 1 þ a2 lnPRit þ a3 lnOPLit

ð4Þ
lnTRit =lnTEit =lnTAit ¼ a0 þ a1 lnTRit 1 =lnTEit 1 =lnTAit 1 þ a2 lnERit þ a3 lnOPLit

ð5Þ
lnTRit =lnTEit =lnTAit ¼ a0 þ a1 lnTRit 1 =lnTEit 1 =lnTAit 1 þ a2 lnFRit þ a3 lnOPLit

ð6Þ
Where ln denotes natural logarithm; it means region i and year t, it-1 refers to the first order
lag; α0, α1, α2, α3, α4, α5, and α6 are the estimated coefficients; TR, TE, and TA represent
tourism revenue, TE and TA, respectively; CR, PR, ER, and FR are the composite country risk,
PR, ER, and FR, respectively; OPL, TRE, EX, and PGDP denote opening-up level, the endow-
ment of tourism resources, exchange rate, and the economic development level, respectively;
λi and μt are fixed effects for time and region, respectively; and εit indicates the random error
term. The same symbols below have the same meaning.
Moderating effect model

This paper introduces the moderating variable (lnINFit), the cross-terms of the moderating
variable, and independent variables (lnCRit × lnINFit, lnPRit × lnINFit, lnERit × lnINFit, lnFRit ×

lnINFit) into the direct effect model, thereby estimating the mitigation effects of informatiza-
tion between the dependent variables (TR, TE, and TA) and independent variables (CR, PR,
ER, and FR). If the independent variables, moderating variable, and the cross-terms all signifi-
cantly impact the dependent variables in the same direction, it indicates that the moderating
variable plays a significant positive moderating role; if they show significant but inconsistent
influence, it means the moderating variable plays a negative moderating effect; if one of the
impacts is not significant, it means the moderating variable is not functioning. The formulas
for testing moderating effects are seen in formulas (7) to (10).
lnTRit =lnTEit =lnTAit ¼ a0 þ a1 lnTRit =lnTEit =lnTAit þ a2 lnCRit þ a3 lnINFit þ a4 lnCRit �
ð7Þ
lnINFit þ a5 lnOPLit þ a6 TRE þ a7 EX þ a8 lnPGDP þ li þ mt þ εit
lnTRit =lnTEit =lnTAit ¼ a0 þ a1 lnTRit =lnTEit =lnTAit þ a2 lnPRit þ a3 lnINFit þ a4 lnPRit �

ð8Þ
lnTRit =lnTEit =lnTAit ¼ a0 þ a1 lnTRit =lnTEit =lnTAit þ a2 lnERit þ a3 lnINFit þ a4 lnERit �

ð9Þ
lnTRit =lnTEit =lnTAit ¼ a0 þ a1 lnTRit =lnTEit =lnTAit þ a2 lnFRit þ a3 lnINFit þ a4 lnERit �

ð10Þ
Where INF denotes informatization; the other variables have the same meaning as those in the
formulas (3) to (6).
Empirical analysis
Unit root test
Unit root test was carried out to test the stationarity of the variables. The IPS test [96], Fisher-
ADF test [97], and Fisher-PP test [98] were employed to perform the unit root tests. Table 3
Table 3. Unit root test.

Variables IPS ADF PP
lnTR -1.093�� a 346.928�� a 890.018�� a
lnTE -1.302�� b 406.029�� a 719.987�� a
lnTA -1.009�� a 455.011�� a 710.009�� a
�� a �� a
lnCR -0.193 393.913 655.201�� a
�� a �� b
lnPR -0.201 319.610 575.199�� a
�� a �� b
lnER -0.329 293.512 534.791�� b
�� b �� a
lnFR -0.274 264.193 614.501�� a
�� a �� a
lnINF -0.231 313.193 514.917�� a
�� a �� a
lnOPL -0.194 293.903 554.181�� a
�� b �� b
TRE -0.189 319.877 524.019�� a
EX -0.174�� a 293.128�� b 394.337�� b
�� a �� b
lnPGDP -0.199 337.219 345.193�� a
a��
indicates the rejection of null hypotheses at 1% significance level, the same below.
b��
indicates the rejection of null hypotheses at 5% significance level, the same below.

Table 4. Panel cointegration test.

Method Statistic Panel
Pedroni residual cointegration Panel v statistic 5.192��
Panel rho-statistic -2.469
Panel PP statistic -39.284��
Panel ADF statistic -32.914��
Group rho statistic 7.910
Group PP statistic -30.109��
Group ADF statistic -17.193��
Kao residual cointegration test ADF statistic 9.392��
shows that all the null hypotheses are rejected at 1% or 5% significance level for the three tests,
which means that there is no unit root in the variables, i.e., all the variables are stationary.
Panel cointegration test

Cointegration test was used to avoid pseudo regression. This study tests the overall panel coin-
tegration between CRs and international tourism based on the methods proposed by Kao [99]
and Pedroni [100]. Table 4 shows that for the Pedroni test, the null hypotheses are rejected at
5% or 1% significance level for Panel-v, Panel-PP, Panel-ADF, Group-PP, and Group-ADF,
indicating that there is a cointegration relationship in the panel data. For the Kao test, the null
hypothesis is rejected for the ADF statistic at 1% significance level. The panel cointegration
test results show that CRs have a long-term impact on international tourism. Combining the
unit root test and panel cointegration test, the panel data are stationary and cointegrated,
which is suitable for the following dynamic panel analysis.
The impact of different risk types on international tourism

The dynamic SYS-GMM method was used to estimate the impact of CRs on international
tourism, and the results are seen in Tables 5–10. AR (1) and AR (2) represent the first and sec-
ond difference of the error term, respectively. The results show that AR (1) passes the Wald
test at 5% or 1% significance level, and AR (2) fails to pass the Wald test, indicating that the
first-order difference of the error term is correlated, and the second-order difference is uncor-
related. In addition, the results demonstrate that the null hypothesis of “all instrumental vari-
ables are valid” in Hansen’s overidentification test is accepted, indicating the validity of the
selection of instrumental variables, and the authenticity and credibility of the estimation
results.
The impact of different risk types on TR

Table 5 estimates the impact of CR and different risk types (i.e., PR, ER, and FR) on TR.
Table 5 shows that the impact of lnCR on lnTR is significant at 1% significance level, with an
impact coefficient of -0.307, indicating that CR has a significant negative impact on TR, and
1% increase in lnCR leads to 0.307% reduction in lnTR. This result is consistent with the con-
clusion of Lee et al., (2020). In addition, lnPR, lnER and lnFR all have a significant negative
impact on TR, with lnFR having the greatest Influence coefficient (-0.568), followed by lnER
(-0.352) and lnPR (-0.291).
With the deepening of economic globalization, FR presents an increasingly deep and
continuous influence on the global economy, including TR [8]. In comparison, PR and ER

Table 5. The impact of different types of CRs on TR.

Variable lnCR lnPR lnER lnFR
L.lnTRa 0.965�� 0.885�� 0.954�� 0.917��
(0.004) b (0.003) b (0.002) b (0.004) b
lnCR -0.307��
(0.032) b
lnPR -0.291��
(0.011) b
lnER -0.352��
(0.028) b
lnFR -0.568��
(0.031) b
lnOPL 0.086�� 0.068 0.188�� b 0.102��
b b b
(0.012) (0.122) (0.022) (0.019) b
��
TRE 0.207 0.058 0.015 0.068��
b b b
(0.018) (0.014) (0.012) (0.006) b
��
EX -0.030 -0.765 -0.030 -0.058��
b b b
(0.048) (0.019) (0.012) (0.027) b
��
lnPGDP 0.080 0.218 0.108 0.229��
b b b
(0.007) (0.004) (0.005) (0.009) b
Observations 2620 2620 2620 2620
AR (1) 0.021 0.026 0.023 0.039
AR (2) 0.274 0.302 0.264 0.301
Controls Yes Yes Yes Yes
Hansen test 131.00 132.30 116.26 131.74
P-value of Hansen test 0.899 0.997 0.872 0.998
a
L. denotes the first order lag of the variable, the same below.
b
the values in the brackets are the standard errors of the coefficients, the same below.
have a smaller impact on tourism [95]. In addition, L.lnTR shows a significant influence,
indicating that TR has a significant lag effect, which means that CR has a long-term and last-
ing impact on TR. This is also consistent with the tourism destination management theory,
which believes that any adverse changes in the tourism destination have a long-term impact
on tourism [101].
The impact of different risk types on TE

Table 6 estimates the impact of different risk types (i.e., CR, PR, ER, and FR) on TE. The
results in Table 6 show that there is a significant negative correlation between lnCR and
lnTE, and every 1% increase in lnCR leads to a 0.222% decrease in lnTE, which indicates
that CR lowers TE (Bernini et al., 2015). Furthermore, lnPR, lnER and lnFR all show a signif-
icant negative influence on lnTE, with lnFR (-0.953), and lnER (-0.999) having a greater
impact than lnPR (-0.780). This finding echoes the study result of Alrawadieh, Alrawadieh
[57], which contends that more residents choose to save money during financial and eco-
nomic risks, thereby reducing travel frequency and TE. Additionally, L.lnTE presents a sig-
nificant impact, indicating that TE also has an obvious time lag effect. Therefore, the impact
of CRs on TE is long-term, which also conforms to the sustainability of tourism influence
[102].

Table 6. The impact of different types of CRs on TE.

Variable lnCR lnPR LnER lnFR
L.lnTE 0.988�� 0.978�� 1.007�� 0.969��
(0.002) (0.013) (0.021) (0.029)
lnCR -0.222��
(0.027)
lnPR -0.780��
(0.170)
lnER -0.999��
(0.306)
lnFR -0.953��
(0.225)
lnOPL 0.232�� 0.240 0.437�� 0.225� a
(0.007) (0.146) (0.175) (0.128)
TRE 0.020� a 0.051�� 0.015 0.596
(0.012) (0.017) (0.027) (1.515)
EX -0.468�� -0.139 -0.054 -0.195
(0.048) (0.181) (0.204) (1.089)
lnPGDP 0.073�� 0.131�� 0.145�� 0.111��
(0.004) (0.035) (0.044) (0.033)
Observations 2620 2620 2620 2620
AR (1) 0.002 0.002 0.001 0.003
AR (2) 0.501 0.675 0.432 0.548
Hansen test 118.89 124.42 127.26 126.03
P-value of Hansen 0.998 0.979 0.999 0.891
a�
denotes the rejection of null hypotheses at 10% significance level, the same below.
The impact of different risk types on TA

Table 7 demonstrates the impact of CR, PR, ER, and FR on TA. The results show that lnCR
has a significant negative impact on lnTA, with every 1% increase in lnCR reducing lnTA by
0.631%. Different risk types are also significantly negatively correlated with TA, with lnPR
showing the greatest influence (-0.726), followed by lnFR (-0.699) and lnER (-0.448). Travels
are not the basic need of residents, which are relatively flexible and vulnerable to external risks.
Therefore, potential tourists will give up travel plans when facing risks. In addition, TA pres-
ents a significant time lag effect, which confirms that risks have a long-term impact on TA and
influence tourists’ travel decisions through their perception [103].
The impact of CR on tourism in different time periods

The outbreak of the financial crisis in 2008 had a great impact on the global economy and
increased the uncertainty of international tourism. Therefore, this paper uses 2008 as a break-
point to estimate the impact of CRs on tourism during 2000–2007 and 2008–2019. The results
are shown in Table 8. It can be seen that before the financial crisis (2000–2007), the impact of
lnCR on lnTR, lnTE, and lnTA were all significantly negative, with the largest impact on lnTR
(-0.481), followed by lnTE (-0.337), and lnTA (-0.302), indicating that TR is most sensitive to
CR before 2008. After the financial crisis (2008–2019), lnCR also presented a significant

Table 7. The impact of different types of CRs on TA.

Variable lnCR lnPR LnER lnFR
L.lnTA 0.887�� 0.933�� 0.883�� 0.907��
(0.042) (0.032) (0.006) (0.049)
��
lnCR -0.631
(0.303)
lnPR -0.726��
(0.035)
lnER -0.448��
(0.037)
lnFR -0.699��
(0.299)
��
lnOPL 0.236 0.786 0.391 0.021
(0.389) (0.374) (0.055) (0.628)
TRE 0.707 0.493 0.929�� b 0.442
(0.565) (0.368) (0.199) (0.863)
EX -0.283 -0.453 -0.468 -0.777��
(0.321) (0.810) (0.302) (0.382)
lnPGDP 0.327� 0.352 0.632�� 0.626��
(0.168) (0.284) (0.015) (0.144)
Observations 2620 2620 2620 2620
AR (1) 0.002 0.002 0.001 0.001
AR (2) 0.330 0.134 0.448 0.329
Hansen test 124.97 126.50 133.93 129.09
P-value of Hansen 0.929 0.999 0.997 0.988
negative impact on lnTR, lnTE, and lnTA, with lnTE being mostly affected by lnCR (-0.577),
followed by lnTR (-0.442) and lnTA (-0.169), demonstrating that TE was more fragile to CR
after 2008. In addition, there are time lag effects in lnTR, lnTE, and lnTA in different time peri-
ods. Regarding the impact coefficients, CR has a greater impact on TR and TA before 2008
and exerts a larger influence on TE after 2008.
The impact of CR on tourism in different regions

Different regions face different CRs and have different capacities to resist them. This paper
explores the impact of CR on tourism in different regions, and the results are shown in
Table 9. It can be seen that the effects of lnCR on lnTR, lnTE, and lnTA are all significantly
negative and vary across different regions, which confirms the adverse impact of CR on inter-
national tourism. Specifically, in the Asia-Pacific region, lnCR has the greatest impact on lnTA
(-0.461), followed by lnTR (-0.420) and lnTE (-0.398). In European region, lnCR has the great-
est impact on lnTE (-0.395), followed by lnTR (-0.304) and lnTA (-0.291). In African coun-
tries, lnCR has the greatest impact on lnTR (-0.753), followed by lnTE (-0.498) and lnTA
(-0.132). For American countries, lnCR has the greatest impact on lnTA (-0.599), followed by
lnTE (-0.471) and lnTR (-0.403). From the impact coefficients, CR displays a larger effect on
international tourism in African American and Asia-Pacific regions and the smallest influence
on the European region, suggesting that CR’s influence tends to be correlated with the overall
development level of a region. In addition, CR has the greatest impact on TA in the American
and Asia-Pacific countries, TE, and TR in the African region.

Table 8. The impact of CR on international tourism in different time periods.

Variable 2000–2007 2008–2019
lnTR lnTE lnTA lnTR lnTE lnTA
L.lnTR 1.026�� 0.982��
(0.035) (0.186)
��
L.lnTE 0.898 1.010��
(0.080) (0.021)
L.lnTA 1.023�� 0.781��
(0.045) (0.108)
lnCR -0.481�� -0.337�� -0.302�� -0.442�� -0.577� -0.169��
(0.014) (0.108) (0.050) (0.209) (0.307) (0.075)
lnOPL 0.397 0.552� 0.309�� 0.040 0.159� 0.365�
(0.398) (0.308) (0.121) (0.083) (0.091) (0.193)
TRE 0.292 0.051 0.186 0.019 0.001 0.794
(0.261) (0.515) (0.260) (0.312) (0.294) (0.529)
EX -0.656 -0.123 -0.079 -0.153 -0.184 -0.070
(1.129) (1.465) (0.346) (0.560) (0.487) (0.698)
lnPGDP 0.819�� 0.683�� 0.346�� 0.044 0.070 0.291��
(0.182) (0.254) (0.140) (0.038) (0.046) (0.146)
Observations 854 854 854 1479 1479 1479
AR (1) 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.002 0.008
AR (2) 0.381 0.259 0.974 0.284 0.200 0.216
Controls Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Hansen test 15.20 25.04 14.16 70.07 87.44 46.39
P-value of Hansen 0.413 0.245 0.863 0.153 0.809 0.884
The impact of CR on tourism in countries with different income levels

Table 10 presents the impact of CR on tourism in countries with different income levels. The
results show that in high-income countries, lnCR has a greater impact on lnTE (-0.291) and
lnTR (-0.261), and has a smaller impact on lnTA (-0.195). In middle-income countries, the
impact coefficients of lnCR on lnTR, lnTE, and lnTA are -0.302, -0.340, and -0.229, respec-
tively. In low-income countries, lnCR has the largest influence on lnTA (-0.704), followed by
lnTE (-0.653) and lnTR (-0.599). Within the income groups, CR has a greater impact on TR
and TE in high-income countries and middle-income countries, but have a greater impact on
TA in low-income countries. Among different income groups, CR shows the greatest impact
on the tourism indicators of low-income countries, followed by the tourism indicators of mid-
dle-income countries and high-income countries, demonstrating that the effects of CR on
international tourism decrease with the increase in income.
Robustness test
This paper examines the robustness of estimation results through different indicators, data
samples, and estimation methods. Firstly, three dependent variables (i.e., TR, TE, TA) and
four independent variables (i.e., CR, ER, PR, FR) are employed to confirm the impact of CRs
on international tourism. By replacing the core variables, the robustness of the results is
enhanced. Secondly, this study explores the heterogeneity of the relationship between variables
in different time periods, different regions, and countries with different income levels, which
enriches the research perspectives and enhances the robustness of the estimation results.

Table 9. The impact of CR on tourism in different regions.

Variable Asia-Pacific Europe Africa America
lnTR lnTE lnTA lnTR lnTE lnTA lnTR lnTE lnTA lnTR lnTE lnTA
L.lnTR 0.897�� 0.896�� 0.951�� 1.167��
(0.046) (0.121) (0.071) (0.136)
L.lnTE 0.964�� 1.006�� 0.954�� 1.109��
(0.055) (0.098) (0.138) (0.135)
L.lnTA 0.101�� 0.973�� 0.877�� 0.926��
(0.016) (0.062) (0.101) (0.071)
lnCR -0.420�� -0.398�� -0.461�� -0.304�� -0.395�� -0.291�� -0.753�� -0.498� -0.132� -0.403� -0.471�� -0.599��
(0.095) (0.106) (0.097) (0.110) (0.162) (0.101) (0.342) (0.279) (0.074) (0.206) (0.148) (0.177)
lnOPL 0.039�� 0.025�� 0.342�� 0.037� 0.054� 0.022 0.122 0.203�� 0.115 0.136 0.064 0.544��
(0.011) (0.011) (0.037) (0.021) (0.029) (0.024) (0.175) (0.075) (0.166) (0.106) (0.143) (0.085)
TRE 0.067 0.036�� 0.039 0.330 0.364 0.299�� 0.048 0.047 0.172 0.060 0.267 0.561�
(0.073) (0.007) (0.057) (0.204) (0.247) (0.093) (0.104) (0.080) (0.380) (0.051) (0.252) (0.328)
EX -0.058�� -0.390�� -0.182�� -0.358�� -0.207� -0.033 -0.489 -0.077 -0.119� -0.155 -0.042 -0.107
(0.011) (0.053) (0.015) (0.117) (0.124) (0.089) (0.708) (0.253) (0.063) (0.180) (0.452) (0.102)
lnPGDP 0.247�� 0.246�� 0.113�� 0.312�� 0.368�� 0.038 0.116 0.054 0.442�� 0.137 0.424� 0.526��
(0.037) (0.049) (0.050) (0.087) (0.182) (0.035) (0.114) (0.149) (0.149) (0.120) (0.253) (0.056)
Observations 660 660 660 722 722 722 646 646 646 513 513 513
AR (1) 0.005 0.002 0.003 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.001 0.002 0.004 0.003 0.002
AR (2) 0.436 0.491 0.939 0.584 0.265 0.643 0.392 0.491 0.524 0.819 0.319 0.671
Controls Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Hansen test 31.16 29.83 30.89 24.24 31.74 31.17 42.98 40.91 29.91 30.92 32.01 33.01
P-value of Hansen 0.989 0.911 0.838 0.789 0.893 0.921 0.991 0.891 0.939 0.918 0.819 0.817
To further verify the robustness of the estimated results, generalized least squares (GLS)
and difference generalized moment estimation (DIF-GMM) are utilized to test the influence of
CR on TR, TE, and TA (seen in Table 11). The results show that the models fit the data well,
and CR significantly negatively affects TR, TE, and TA in the GLS model and the DIF-GMM
model, which is consistent with the estimation results of SYS-GMM model.
Moderating effects
The regression results of the moderating effect of informatization between CR and interna-
tional tourism are seen in Table 12. In the table, columns (1) to (3) present the impact of CR
and INF on TR, TE, and TA, (4) to (6) exhibit the influence of PR and INF on TR, TE, and TA,
(7) to (9) show the effects of ER and INF on TR, TE and TA, and (10) to (12) display the impact
of FR and INF on TR, TE, and TA. The results demonstrate that the effects of lnCR, lnPR,
lnER, and lnFR on lnTR, lnTE, and lnTA are all negative, while lnINF, lnCR� INF, lnPR� INF,
lnER� INF, and lnFR� INF all show a positive influence, indicating that informatization not
only promotes international tourism directly, but also alleviate the adverse impact of CR on
international tourism.
In terms of the impact coefficients, INF moderates the influence of CR on TR, TE, and TA
by 0.085, 0.090, and 0.079, which suggests that for every 1% negative effects of CR, INF can
decrease 0.085% for TR, 0.090% for TE, and 0.079% for TA, indicating that informatization is
more effective in alleviating risks for TR and TE than TA. Among the three different dimen-
sions of CR, INF has the greatest moderation effect between FR and TR (0.515), followed by
ER and TE (0.197), and PR and TR (0.184), demonstrating that INF can alleviate more than

Table 10. The impact of CR on tourism in countries with different income levels.
Variable High-income countries Middle-income countries Low-income countries
lnTR lnTE lnTA lnTR lnTE lnTA lnTR lnTE lnTA
L.lnTR 1.017�� 0.939�� 0.926��
(0.015) (0.014) (0.071)
��
L.lnTE 0.999 0.975 0.883��
(0.022) (0.052) (0.224)
L.lnTA 0.909�� 0.972�� 0.943�
(0.026) (0.010) (0.492)
lnCR -0.261�� -0.291�� -0.195�� -0.302�� -0.340�� -0.229�� -0.599�� -0.653�� -0.704�
(0.078) (0.062) (0.061) (0.059) (0.170) (0.005) (0.177) (0.178) (0.395)
lnOPL 0.010 0.007 0.091�� 0.021 0.165�� 0.154�� 0.544�� 0.103 0.168
(0.012) (0.010) (0.027) (0.030) (0.078) (0.008) (0.085) (0.370) (0.741)
TRE 0.135� 0.049 0.037 0.461�� 0.154 0.092�� 0.561� 0.009 0.786
(0.080) (0.112) (0.045) (0.063) (0.229) (0.045) (0.328) (0.647) (1.110)
EX -0.002 -0.054 -0.336�� -0.003 -0.006 -0.035 -0.107 -0.187 -0.500
(0.047) (0.056) (0.069) (0.009) (0.034) (0.023) (0.182) (0.824) (0.398)
lnPGDP 0.006 0.124�� 0.195�� 0.099�� 0.169�� 0.001 0.516�� 0.029 0.351
(0.039) (0.041) (0.029) (0.027) (0.071) (0.010) (0.056) (0.077) (0.221)
Observations 988 988 988 1207 1207 1207 332 332 332
AR (1) 0.006 0.005 0.003 0.002 0.002 0.025 0.012 0.004 0.038
AR (2) 0.198 0.541 0.330 0.532 0.294 0.364 0.664 0.588 0.128
Controls Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Hansen test 43.67 40.91 45.03 59.30 59.71 55.66 3.33 3.94 2.07
P-value of Hansen 0.998 0.340 0.997 0.917 0.978 0.910 0.998 0.999 0.998
50% of the adverse impacts of FR on TR, and nearly 20% of the negative influence of ER on TE
and PR on TR.
Conclusions and discussions

Based on the panel data of 138 countries from 2000 to 2019, this paper estimates the impacts of
CRs on international tourism, and the moderating role of informatization using the dynamic
SYS-GMM model. In the models, CRs include an aggregate indicator of CR, and three dimen-
sions of PR, ER, and FR, and international tourism is proxied by three variables of TR, TE, and
TA. In addition, the empirical tests are examined in different time periods, countries in differ-
ent regions, and countries with different income levels. The main research conclusions are as
follows.
CRs show a significant negative impact on international tourism regardless of the time peri-
ods, regions, or income levels, indicating the negative relationship between the two variables,
which is consistent with the conclusion of Lee and Chen [18]. In terms of impact intensity, the
influence of CRs on international tourism is heterogenous across different risk indicators,
time periods, regions, and countries.
Firstly, the composite CR presents the greatest impact on TA, followed by TR and TE, indi-
cating that the number of tourists is more affected by CR than tourism receipts and spending.
Since TA is the starting point of traveling, it is the easiest to be affected by external risks. CR
usually affects TA by adversely impacting destination image [47–49], thereby changing tour-
ists’ attitude towards or perceived control about a planned travel.

Table 11. The impact of CR on international tourism using different methods.

Variable TR TE TA
GLSa DIF-GMM GLSa DIF-GMM GLSa DIF-GMM
lnTR 0.687��
(0.183)
lnTE 0.691��
(0.059)
lnTA 0.675��
(0.137)
lnCR -0.314�� -0.450�� -0.357�� -0.745�� -0.961�� -0.555��
(0.112) (0.168) (0.159) (0.304) (0.441) (0.220)
lnOPL 0.341 0.434 0.031 0.259 0.167 0.566��
(0.553) (0.378) (0.393) (0.507) (0.798) (0.225)
��
TRE 0.353 0.156 0.050 0.112 0.180 0.006
(0.314) (0.065) (0.361) (0.053) (0.225) (0.996)
lnEX -0.028 -0.025 -0.492� -0.060 -0.493 -0.763
(0.425) (0.043) (0.271) (0.065) (0.555) (0.503)
lnPGDP 0.045�� 0.038�� 0.078�� 0.023 0.432�� 0.492��
(0.014) (0.016) (0.018) (0.018) (0.124) (0.148)
Observations 2760 2320 2760 2320 2760 2360
R2 0.329 0.331 0.530
AR (1) 0.079 0.001 0.002
AR (2) 0.333 0.717 0.235
Controls Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Hansen test 128.38 133.17 130.57
P-value of Hansen 0.984 0.967 0.978
a
Fixed effects model was used to conduct the generalized least square analysis (GLS).
Secondly, FR and ER have the greatest impact on TR and TE, while PR affects TA the most.
As indicators closely related to money, TR and TE are more affected by financial and eco-
nomic factors, which has also been confirmed by Chan [67] by studying the effects of global
financial markets on the entertainment TR of Macao, and Eugenio-Martin and Campos-Soria
[17] through examining the TE cutback decision during the economic crisis. However, PR
involves factors such as wars, terrorism, and conflicts, etc., that threaten the lives of tourists,
thus having a greater impact on TA. Tiwari, Das [95] have also testified that geopolitical risks
have stronger and longer impacts on TA than economic uncertainties. Moreover, the negative
impacts of PR on tourist flow have been recognized by previous studies [52, 104].
Thirdly, TR and TA were more sensitive to CR before 2008, while TE was the most vulnera-
ble to CR after 2008. With the increasing awareness of tourism risk management since 2008,
destinations’ ability to resist risks has been enhanced. In addition, the popularity of tourists’
personalized psychology in recent years has made some high-risk tourist destinations attrac-
tive to tourists, satisfying tourists’ pursuit of rare and new experiences [45]. Therefore, the
effect of CR on TR and TA decreased after 2008. However, in the face of crisis, tourist spending
seems to have become more conservative after the financial crisis, which is consistent with the
conclusion of Eugenio-Martin and Campos-Soria [17].
Fourthly, CR shows a larger impact on international tourism in African, American, and
Asia-Pacific regions, while exerting the smallest effect on international tourism in Europe. Fur-
thermore, international tourism in high-income countries is least affected by CR, followed by

Table 12. The moderating effects of informatization.

Variable CR PR ER FR
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12)
lnTR lnTE lnTA lnTR lnTE lnTA lnTR lnTE lnTA lnTR lnTE lnTA
L. lnTR 0.965�� 0.958�� 0.973�� 0.972��
(0.021) (0.015) (0.167) (0.019)
L. lnTE 0.981�� 0.949�� 0.976�� 0.968��
(0.024) (0.023) (0.020) (0.017)
L. lnTA 0.993�� 0.832�� 0.893�� 0.948��
(0.029) (0.054) (0.049) (0.013)
lnCR/lnPR/lnER/lnFR -0.237� -0.210�� -0.533�� -0.272�� -0.488�� -0.395�� -0.242� -0.184�� -0.407� -0.568�� -0.943�� -0.528��
(0.130) (0.095) (0.197) (0.103) (0.169) (0.018) (0.127) (0.052) (0.227) (0.231) (0.385) (0.239)
lnINF 0.480�� 0.799�� 0.579�� 0.480�� 0.481�� 0.022�� 0.777�� 0.081�� 0.048�� 0.133� 0.106�� 0.092�
(0.148) (0.125) (0.279) (0.206) (0.165) (0.011) (0.381) (0.023) (0.013) (0.079) (0.049) (0.050)
lnCR� INF 0.085� 0.090�� 0.079��
(0.047) (0.037) (0.033)
lnPR� INF 0.184�� 0.119�� 0.077��
(0.088) (0.008) (0.035)
lnER� INF 0.035� 0.197�� 0.154��
(0.019) (0.057) (0.068)
lnFR� INF 0.515�� 0.132� 0.075��
(0.186) (0.071) (0.035)
lnOPL 0.016 0.062�� 0.092�� 0.024 0.069 0.138 0.602 0.029� 0.061 0.010 0.001 0.012
(0.020) (0.023) (0.027) (0.047) (0.055) (0.216) (0.411) (0.015) (0.140) (0.021) (0.017) (0.102)
TRE 0.773� 0.079 0.051 0.519�� 0.496�� 0.057 0.380�� 0.010 0.456 0.322 0.342 0.410
(0.426) (0.197) (0.102) (0.190) (0.217) (0.209) (0.187) (0.221) (0.345) (0.305) (0.273) (0.315)
EX -0.019 -0.001 -0.068 -0.018� -0.008 -0.205� -0.654� -0.605 -0.310�� -0.673 -0.418 -0.098
(0.033) (0.017) (0.101) (0.010) (0.014) (0.108) (0.370) (0.444) (0.098) (0.545) (0.368) (0.378)
lnPGDP 0.198�� 0.221�� 0.201�� 0.646�� 0.677�� 0.442�� 0.301�� 0.043 0.354 0.059 0.544�� 0.071��
(0.023) (0.011) (0.019) (0.119) (0.098) (0.185) (0.075) (0.245) (0.320) (0.119) (0.224) (0.011)
Observations 2618 2618 2618 2618 2618 2618 2618 2618 2618 2618 2618 2618
AR (1) 0.003 0.001 0.001 0.003 0.002 0.003 0.003 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.004 0.001
AR (2) 0.22 0.467 0.228 0.222 0.488 0.421 0.479 0.301 0.319 0.329 0.417 0.313
Controls Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Hansen test 132.94 132.99 124.15 124.12 126.39 125.52 129.78 133.92 127.18 27.21 31.19 17.01
P-value of Hansen 0.907 0.998 0.999 0.998 0.999 0.997 0.997 0.819 0.999 0.998 0.919 0.897
middle-income countries, while international tourism in low-income countries is most

affected by CR. These results indicate that the influence of CR on international tourism is neg-
atively related to the development level of a region or country. A higher development level or
income usually indicates stronger support for tourism development, and more mature tourism
markets. Therefore, higher-income countries can adopt more diverse measures to recover the
tourism industry during risky periods. On the contrary, the tourism industry in low-income
countries is restricted by various factors, such as high cost and low availability of capital [105].
As a result, international tourism is more vulnerable to CR in less developed regions or coun-
tries. Karabulut, Bilgin [106] also pointed out that the negative impact of the pandemic on TA
only lasts in low-income economies because they have weaker abilities to resist crisis.
In addition to the direct relationship between CRs and international tourism, this paper
further reveals the significant moderating role of informatization between the two variables.

Specifically, informatization exhibits a positive impact on international tourism indicators,

uncovering a direct improvement effect of informatization on tourism, which has been sup-
ported by Hong, Thakuriah [82], who confirmed that people using the internet travel further,
and Wang [107], who asserted that modern information technology facilitates tourism hotel
management. Besides, the interaction terms of informatization and CRs display an obvious
promoting effect on international indicators, demonstrating a significant moderation function
of informatization between CRs and international tourism. Although no research has directly
confirmed the positive effect of informatization on resolving the tourism crises, quite a few
scholars have pointed out the potential of informatization in this regard by enhancing tourists’
crisis awareness [72] and innovating tourism crisis management models [35, 108]. Among dif-
ferent indicators, informatization presents the greatest moderation effect between CR and TE,
followed by CR and TR, and CR and TA. By providing more diversified local-based tourism
services and products, as well as more channels for tourism advertising, recommendation, and
booking, information technology plays an increasingly important role in promoting the tour-
ism economy [109]. Lorente-Bayona, Gras-Gil [110] has concluded that the wide use of the
internet raises international TE. However, as stated above, when facing PR, TA is more related
to the personal safety of tourists, which is difficult to be alleviated through informatization.
Policy and managerial implications

Based on the above research findings, this study proposes the following policy and managerial
suggestions.
Firstly, given the widespread negative impacts of CRs on international tourism, risk man-
agement measures should be taken by all countries. From the supply side, all the destinations
should establish normalized risk early warning mechanisms to prevent or reduce the risks in
advance, such as the cooperation between the tourism industry and the emergency manage-
ment department. In addition, considering the spillover effects of CRs across countries, inter-
country collaboration and timely communication are necessary for the whole process of travel-
ing. From the demand side, since tourists’ visit intention is influenced by their risk perception
and perceived self-efficacy, techniques targeting tourist perception management could be
adopted by destinations, such as publicizing destination security and safety precautions on
tourism promotion meetings and official websites.
Secondly, in view of the spatial and temporal heterogeneity of the impacts of CRs on inter-
national tourism, different destinations should take targeted measures for different risk types,
tourism indicators, and time periods. Specifically, measures to increase TA should be the pri-
ority during PR, while policies and movements to stimulate TE and TR are worth the greatest
attention during ER and FR. In particular, TE needs to be prevented from contracting signifi-
cantly after the wake of the economic and financial crisis. Therefore, destinations should adopt
sales promotion, consumption vouchers, and other marketing means in time to boost con-
sumer confidence. Furthermore, low-income countries should pay more attention to the pre-
caution and alleviation of CRs since they generally have weaker resistance to external risks.
UNWTO and other international tourism organizations should also give more preference to
low-income countries regarding policy and financial support during tourism risks.
Lastly, based on the significant moderation effects of informatization between CRs and
international tourism, modern information technology can be an effective tool for risk preven-
tion and alleviation. By utilizing the internet and mobile communication technologies, desti-
nations can release risk-related information anytime and anywhere. Therefore, tourism
destinations should first build a sound information platform for CR warning and manage-
ment, including official websites, official Weibo accounts, APPs, WeChat mini programs, and

short video accounts, etc. In addition, timely risk warnings and relevant information releases
are essential to minimize risk losses, which relies on information technologies to construct
smooth information communication channels and orderly information release procedures.
Last but not least, destination image restoration after risk needs a wide range of marketing
campaigns to reverse tourists’ perception of CRs, highlighting the advantages of modern infor-
mation technologies.
Research limitations and future research directions

Overall, this research confirms the negative impact of CRs on international tourism by consid-
ering four types of risks and three tourism indicators, reveals the heterogeneous influence in
different time periods, regions, and countries, and explores the moderation effects of informa-
tization between the two variables. Although we have explored the relationship between CRs,
informatization, and international tourism from multiple dimensions and perspectives, there
is still space for further refinement in future research. First, there are five subdimensions of ER
and FR, respectively, and 12 subdimensions of PR. Therefore, a deeper exploration into these
22 indicators will provide more detailed insights into the impact of various CR sources on
tourism. Second, informatization consists of three subcomponents of informatization infra-
structure, informatization applications, and informatization skills. It will be interesting to
compare the moderation intensity of different informatization indicators between CRs and
tourism. Besides, the current study focuses on the influence of CRs and informatization on
international tourism, and other risk types, e.g., geopolitical risks, economic uncertainties, cli-
mate change, and pandemics, and other possible moderation mechanisms, e.g., specific risk
mitigation measures, have been ignored, which worth further research.
Supporting information
S1 Table. Abbreviations.
(DOCX)
S2 Table. Data.
(DOCX)
Author Contributions
Conceptualization: Meijing Zhou, Qiong Xu.
Data curation: Zhaoming Deng.
Formal analysis: Zhaoming Deng, Qiong Xu.
Funding acquisition: Zhaoming Deng.
Investigation: Zhaoming Deng.
Methodology: Zhaoming Deng, Meijing Zhou, Qiong Xu.
Project administration: Zhaoming Deng, Meijing Zhou.
Software: Meijing Zhou, Qiong Xu.
Supervision: Meijing Zhou, Qiong Xu.
Writing – original draft: Zhaoming Deng.
Writing – review & editing: Meijing Zhou, Qiong Xu.

References
1. Singh AL, Jamal S, Ahmad WS. Impact assessment of lockdown amid Covid-19 pandemic on tourism
industry of Kashmir Valley, India. Research in Globalization. 2021; 3:100053.
2. World Tourism Cities Federation. One picture to understand the "World Tourism Economic Trends
Report (2022)" 2022 [cited 2022 September 23rd]. https://cn.wtcf.org.cn/20220301/53ebfa9e-a304-
c903-ba99-bd6c6fa1c0d5.html.
3. Duro JA, Perez-Laborda A, Turrion-Prats J, Fernández-Fernández M. Covid-19 and tourism vulnera-
bility. Tourism Management Perspectives. 2021; 38:100819. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2021.
100819 PMID: 34873568
4. McKercher B, Chon K. The over-reaction to SARS and the collapse of Asian tourism. Annals of tourism
research. 2004; 31(3):716. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2003.11.002 PMID: 32572281
5. Hall CM. Crisis events in tourism: Subjects of crisis in tourism. Current issues in Tourism. 2010; 13
(5):401–17.
6. World Tourism Organization. UNWTO Tourism Recovery Tracker 2022 [cited 2022 September 23rd].
https://www.unwto.org/tourism-data/unwto-tourism-recovery-tracker.
7. Lepp A, Gibson H. Tourist roles, perceived risk and international tourism. Annals of Tourism Research.
2003; 30(3):606–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-7383(03)00024-0
8. Sio-Chong U, So Y-C. The impacts of financial and non-financial crises on tourism: Evidence from
Macao and Hong Kong. Tourism Management Perspectives. 2020; 33:100628.
9. Leslie D. Terrorism and tourism: The Northern Ireland situation—A look behind the veil of certainty.
Journal of Travel Research. 1999; 38(1):37–40.
10. Sönmez SF, Apostolopoulos Y, Tarlow P. Tourism in crisis: Managing the effects of terrorism. Journal
of travel research. 1999; 38(1):13–8.
11. Sönmez SF, Graefe AR. Influence of terrorism risk on foreign tourism decisions. Annals of Tourism
Research. 1998; 25(1):112–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-7383(97)00072-8
12. Richter LK. After political turmoil: The lessons of rebuilding tourism in three Asian countries. Journal of
Travel Research. 1999; 38(1):41–5.
13. Bhattarai K, Conway D, Shrestha N. Tourism, terrorism and turmoil in Nepal. Annals of Tourism
Research. 2005; 32(3):669–88.
14. Yaya ME. Terrorism and tourism: The case of Turkey. Defence and Peace Economics. 2009; 20
(6):477–97.
15. Enders W, Sandler T, Parise GF. An econometric analysis of the impact of terrorism on tourism. Kyk-
los. 1992; 45(4):531–54.
16. Song H, Lin S. Impacts of the financial and economic crisis on tourism in Asia. Journal of Travel
Research. 2010; 49(1):16–30.
17. Eugenio-Martin JL, Campos-Soria JA. Economic crisis and tourism expenditure cutback decision.
Annals of Tourism Research. 2014; 44:53–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2013.08.013
18. Lee C-C, Chen M-P. Do country risks matter for tourism development? International evidence. Journal
of Travel Research. 2021; 60(7):1445–68.
19. Hoti S, McAleer M, Shareef R. Modelling international tourism and country risk spillovers for Cyprus
and Malta. Tourism Management. 2007; 28(6):1472–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2007.02.
014
20. TN S, PM N. Does country risk influence international tourism? A dynamic panel data analysis. Eco-
nomic Record. 2008; 84(265):223–36.
21. Canh NP, Thanh SD. Domestic tourism spending and economic vulnerability. Annals of tourism
research. 2020; 85:103063. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2020.103063 PMID: 33100434
22. Mikulić J, Miloš Sprčić D, Holiček H, Prebežac D. Strategic crisis management in tourism: An
application of integrated risk management principles to the Croatian tourism industry. Journal
of Destination Marketing & Management. 2018; 7:36–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdmm.2016.08.
001
23. Ballotta L, Fusai G, Kyriakou I, Papapostolou NC, Pouliasis PK. Risk management of climate impact
for tourism operators: An empirical analysis on ski resorts. Tourism Management. 2020; 77:104011.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2019.104011
24. Jeff W, Stewart M. Tourism Risk Management for the Asia-Pacific region. Gold Coast: 2004.
25. Oroian M, Gheres M. Developing a risk management model in travel agencies activity: An empirical
analysis. Tourism Management. 2012; 33(6):1598–603. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2011.12.
020

26. Nguyen DN, Imamura F, Iuchi K. Public-private collaboration for disaster risk management: A case
study of hotels in Matsushima, Japan. Tourism Management. 2017; 61:129–40. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.tourman.2017.02.003
27. Tsai C-H, Chen C-W. An earthquake disaster management mechanism based on risk assessment
information for the tourism industry-a case study from the island of Taiwan. Tourism Management.
2010; 31(4):470–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2009.05.008
28. Wilks J, Davis RJ. Risk management for scuba diving operators on Australia’s Great Barrier Reef.
Tourism Management. 2000; 21(6):591–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0261-5177(00)00008-X
29. Clinch H, Viachaslau F. Instructors’ perspectives on risk management within adventure tourism. Tour-
ism Planning & Development. 2017; 14(2):220–39.
30. Romão J. Tourism, smart specialisation, growth, and resilience. Annals of Tourism Research. 2020;
84:102995. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2020.102995 PMID: 32834229
31. Choudhary SA, Khan MA, Sheikh AZ, Jabor MK, Nordin MSb, Nassani AA, et al. Role of information
and communication technologies on the war against terrorism and on the development of tourism: Evi-
dence from a panel of 28 countries. Technology in Society. 2020; 62:101296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
techsoc.2020.101296
32. Xiang Z. From digitization to the age of acceleration: On information technology and tourism. Tourism
Management Perspectives. 2018; 25:147–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2017.11.023
33. Fan X, Jiang X, Deng N. Immersive technology: A meta-analysis of augmented/virtual reality applica-
tions and their impact on tourism experience. Tourism Management. 2022; 91:104534. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.tourman.2022.104534
34. Viken A, Höckert E, Grimwood BS. Cultural sensitivity: Engaging difference in tourism. Annals of Tour-
ism Research. 2021; 89:103223.
35. Gretzel U. Intelligent systems in tourism: A Social Science Perspective. Annals of Tourism Research.
2011; 38(3):757–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2011.04.014
36. Mandal S, Dubey RK. Role of tourism IT adoption and risk management orientation on tourism agility
and resilience: Impact on sustainable tourism supply chain performance. International Journal of Tour-
ism Research. 2020; 22(6):800–13. https://doi.org/10.1002/jtr.2381
37. Bosnjak M, Ajzen I, Schmidt P. The theory of planned behavior: selected recent advances and applica-
tions. Europe’s Journal of Psychology. 2020; 16(3):352. https://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.v16i3.3107
PMID: 33680187
38. Ajzen I. Theory of planned behavior diagram 2019 [cited 2022 Septem 25th]. https://people.umass.
edu/aizen/tpb.diag.html#null-link.
39. Ulker-Demirel E, Ciftci G. A systematic literature review of the theory of planned behavior in tourism,
leisure and hospitality management research. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management. 2020;
43:209–19.
40. Quintal VA, Lee JA, Soutar GN. Risk, uncertainty and the theory of planned behavior: A tourism exam-
ple. Tourism Management. 2010; 31(6):797–805. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2009.08.006
41. Liu B, Schroeder A, Pennington-Gray L, Farajat SA. Source market perceptions: How risky is Jordan
to travel to? Journal of Destination Marketing & Management. 2016; 5(4):294–304.
42. Liu-Lastres B, Schroeder A, Pennington-Gray L. Cruise line customers’ responses to risk and crisis
communication messages: An application of the risk perception attitude framework. Journal of travel
research. 2019; 58(5):849–65.
43. Cahyanto I, Wiblishauser M, Pennington-Gray L, Schroeder A. The dynamics of travel avoidance: The
case of Ebola in the US. Tourism Management Perspectives. 2016; 20:195–203.
44. Chisty MA, Islam MA, Munia AT, Rahman MM, Rahman NN, Mohima M. Risk perception and informa-
tion-seeking behavior during emergency: An exploratory study on COVID-19 pandemic in Bangladesh.
International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction. 2021; 65:102580. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2021.
102580 PMID: 34540577
45. Martins LF, Gan Y, Ferreira-Lopes A. An empirical analysis of the influence of macroeconomic deter-
minants on World tourism demand. Tourism management. 2017; 61:248–60.
46. Baker DMA. The effects of terrorism on the travel and tourism industry. International journal of religious
tourism and pilgrimage. 2014; 2(1):9.
47. Farmaki A. Memory and forgetfulness in tourism crisis research. Tourism management. 2021;
83:104210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2020.104210 PMID: 32904475
48. Rasoolimanesh SM, Seyfi S, Rastegar R, Hall CM. Destination image during the COVID-19 pandemic
and future travel behavior: The moderating role of past experience. Journal of Destination Marketing &
Management. 2021; 21:100620.

49. Pizam A, Mansfeld Y. Toward a theory of tourism security. Tourism, security and safety: Routledge;
2006. p. 15–41.
50. Hall D. Tourism, crime and international security issues: Abraham Pizam and Yoel Mansfeld (eds)
Wiley Chichester (1996) viii+ 321 pp. Pergamon; 1996.
51. Oreja-Rodrı́guez JR, Yanes-Estévez V. Perceived environmental uncertainty in tourism: A new
approach using the Rasch model. Tourism Management. 2007; 28(6):1450–63.
52. Ghalia T, Fidrmuc J, Samargandi N, Sohag K. Institutional quality, political risk and tourism. Tourism
Management Perspectives. 2019; 32:100576. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2019.100576
53. Khalid U, Okafor LE, Aziz N. Armed conflict, military expenditure and international tourism. Tourism
Economics. 2020; 26(4):555–77.
54. Hyndman J. The securitisation of Sri Lankan tourism in the absence of peace. Stability: International
Journal of Security and Development. 2015; 4(1).
55. Avraham E. Destination image repair during crisis: Attracting tourism during the Arab Spring uprisings.
Tourism Management. 2015; 47:224–32.
56. Xu Q, Zhong M, Cheng H, Li X. Does public policy alleviate the impact of political risks on international
tourism? Journal of Policy Research in Tourism, Leisure and Events. 2022:1–23.
57. Alrawadieh Z, Alrawadieh Z, Kozak M. Exploring the impact of tourist harassment on destination
image, tourist expenditure, and destination loyalty. Tourism management. 2019; 73:13–20.
58. Sokhanvar A. Does foreign direct investment accelerate tourism and economic growth within Europe?
Tourism Management Perspectives. 2019; 29:86–96.
59. Papatheodorou A, Rosselló J, Xiao H. Global economic crisis and tourism: Consequences and per-
spectives. Journal of Travel Research. 2010; 49(1):39–45.
60. Smeral E. The impact of the financial and economic crisis on European tourism. Journal of Travel
Research. 2009; 48(1):3–13.
61. Steiner C, Richter T, Dörry S, Neisen V, Stephenson M, Lemma AF, et al. Economic crisis, interna-
tional tourism decline and its impact on the poor. Economic crisis, international tourism decline and its
impact on the poor. 2012.
62. Page S, Song H, Wu DC. Assessing the impacts of the global economic crisis and swine flu on inbound
tourism demand in the United Kingdom. Journal of travel research. 2012; 51(2):142–53.
63. Alegre J, Mateo S, Pou L. Tourism participation and expenditure by Spanish households: The effects
of the economic crisis and unemployment. Tourism Management. 2013; 39:37–49.
64. Smeral E. Impacts of the world recession and economic crisis on tourism: Forecasts and potential
risks. Journal of Travel Research. 2010; 49(1):31–8.
65. Kapiki S. The impact of economic crisis on tourism and hospitality: Results from a study in Greece.
Central European Review of Economics and Finance. 2012; 2(1):19–30.
66. Gjerald O, Lyngstad H. Service risk perceptions and risk management strategies in business-to-busi-
ness tourism partnerships. Tourism management perspectives. 2015; 13:7–17.
67. Chan VKY. The Impact of the Global Financial Crisis on the Entertainment Tourism Industry: A Finan-
cial Engineering Case Study of Macao from 2007 to 2010. Systems Engineering Procedia. 2011;
1:323–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sepro.2011.08.049
68. Prideaux B, Witt SF. The impact of the Asian financial crisis on Australian tourism. Asia Pacific Journal
of Tourism Research. 2000; 5(1):1–7.
69. Pappas N, Apostolakis A. Financial crisis and tourism Activity: Evidence from the UK. Destination man-
agement and marketing: Breakthroughs in research and practice: IGI Global; 2020. p. 784–801.
70. Meng X, Chin A, Grant B. Long-run Effect of the Global Financial Crisis on S ingapore’s Tourism and
the Economy. Asian Economic Journal. 2015; 29(1):41–60.
71. Chan VK. The impact of the global financial crisis on the entertainment tourism industry: A financial
engineering case study of Macao from 2007 to 2010. Systems Engineering Procedia. 2011; 1:323–
9.
72. Brown CB. Tourism, crime and risk perception: An examination of broadcast media’s framing of nega-
tive Aruban sentiment in the Natalee Holloway case and its impact on tourism demand. Tourism Man-
agement Perspectives. 2015; 16:266–77.
73. Gómez-Vega M, Picazo-Tadeo AJ. Ranking world tourist destinations with a composite indicator of
competitiveness: To weigh or not to weigh? Tourism Management. 2019; 72:281–91.
74. Tang CF. Temporal Granger causality and the dynamics relationship between real tourism receipts,
real income and real exchange rates in Malaysia. International Journal of Tourism Research. 2013; 15
(3):272–84.

75. Zhang N, Ren R, Zhang Q, Zhang T. Air pollution and tourism development: An interplay. Annals of
Tourism Research. 2020; 85:103032.
76. Fritz RG, Konecny M, Stoucas PD. Tourism expenditure model—a functional planning and policy-mak-
ing tool. Tourism Management. 1984; 5(2):110–7.
77. Konstantakis KN, Soklis G, Michaelides PG. Tourism expenditures and crisis transmission: A general
equilibrium GVAR analysis with network theory. Annals of Tourism Research. 2017; 66:74–94.
78. Tian X-L, Bélaïd F, Ahmad N. Exploring the nexus between tourism development and environmental
quality: Role of Renewable energy consumption and Income. Structural Change and Economic
Dynamics. 2021; 56:53–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strueco.2020.10.003 PMID: 35317019
79. Okafor LE, Tan CM, Khalid U. Does panda diplomacy promote Chinese outbound tourism flows? Jour-
nal of Hospitality and Tourism Management. 2021; 49:54–64.
80. Howell LD. International country risk guide methodology. East Syracuse, NY: PRS Group. 2011;7.
81. Bris M, Pawlak J, Polak JW. How is ICT use linked to household transport expenditure? A cross-
national macro analysis of the influence of home broadband access. Journal of Transport Geography.
2017; 60:231–42.
82. Hong J, Thakuriah PV, Mason P, Lido C. The role of numeracy and financial literacy skills in the rela-
tionship between information and communication technology use and travel behaviour. Travel Behav-
iour and Society. 2020; 21:257–64.
83. Croes R, Ridderstaat J, Bąk M, Zientara P. Tourism specialization, economic growth, human develop-
ment and transition economies: The case of Poland. Tourism Management. 2021; 82:104181.
84. Irandoust M. On the relation between exchange rates and tourism demand: A nonlinear and asymmet-
ric analysis. The Journal of Economic Asymmetries. 2019; 20:e00123.
85. Seetaram N, Forsyth P, Dwyer L. Measuring price elasticities of demand for outbound tourism using
competitiveness indices. Annals of Tourism Research. 2016; 56:65–79.
86. Roodman D. How to do xtabond2: An introduction to difference and system GMM in Stata. The stata
journal. 2009; 9(1):86–136.
87. Uddin MA, Ali MH, Masih M. Political stability and growth: An application of dynamic GMM and quantile
regression. Economic Modelling. 2017; 64:610–25.
88. Yin K, Hong L. Comparative Study of System GMM Estimation Method. Statistics & Decision. 2020; 36
(21):38–42.
89. Duan W, Chen W. International comparison of monetization rates: Systematic GMM estimation based
on dynamic panel data. Macroeconomics. 2020;(12):62–9.
90. Heid B, Langer J, Larch M. Income and democracy: Evidence from system GMM estimates. Econom-
ics Letters. 2012; 116(2):166–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2012.02.009
91. Rahman MM, Rana RH, Barua S. The drivers of economic growth in South Asia: evidence from a
dynamic system GMM approach. Journal of Economic Studies. 2019; 46(3):564–77. https://doi.org/
10.1108/JES-01-2018-0013
92. da Silva PP, Cerqueira PA. Assessing the determinants of household electricity prices in the EU: a sys-
tem-GMM panel data approach. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 2017; 73:1131–7.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.02.016
93. Berk I, Kasman A, Kılınç D. Towards a common renewable future: The System-GMM approach to
assess the convergence in renewable energy consumption of EU countries. Energy Economics. 2020;
87:103922. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2018.02.013
94. Zhou H, Xu G. Research on the impact of green finance on China’s regional ecological development
based on system GMM model. Resources Policy. 2022; 75:102454. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
resourpol.2021.102454
95. Tiwari AK, Das D, Dutta A. Geopolitical risk, economic policy uncertainty and tourist arrivals: Evidence
from a developing country. Tourism Management. 2019; 75:323–7.
96. Im KS, Pesaran MH, Shin Y. Testing for unit roots in heterogeneous panels. Journal of econometrics.
2003; 115(1):53–74.
97. Maddala GS, Wu S. A comparative study of unit root tests with panel data and a new simple test.
Oxford Bulletin of Economics and statistics. 1999; 61(S1):631–52.
98. Choi I. Unit root tests for panel data. Journal of international money and Finance. 2001; 20(2):249–72.
99. Kao C. Spurious regression and residual-based tests for cointegration in panel data. Journal of econo-
metrics. 1999; 90(1):1–44.
100. Pedroni P. Panel cointegration: asymptotic and finite sample properties of pooled time series tests with
an application to the PPP hypothesis. Econometric theory. 2004; 20(3):597–625.

101. Song H, Livat F, Ye S. Effects of terrorist attacks on tourist flows to France: Is wine tourism a substitute
for urban tourism? Journal of Destination Marketing and Management. 2019; 14:100385.
102. Balsalobre-Lorente D, Driha OM, Sinha A. The dynamic effects of globalization process in analysing
N-shaped tourism led growth hypothesis. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management. 2020;
43:42–52.
103. Yu Q, McManus R, Yen DA, Li XR. Tourism boycotts and animosity: A study of seven events. Annals
of Tourism Research. 2020; 80:102792.
104. Seabra C, Reis P, Abrantes JL. The influence of terrorism in tourism arrivals: A longitudinal approach
in a Mediterranean country. Annals of Tourism Research. 2020; 80:102811. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
annals.2019.102811 PMID: 32572289
105. Demiralay S. Political uncertainty and the us tourism index returns. Annals of Tourism Research.
2020; 84(C).
106. Karabulut G, Bilgin MH, Demir E, Doker AC. How pandemics affect tourism: International evidence.
Annals of tourism research. 2020; 84:102991. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2020.102991 PMID:
32834226
107. Wang N. Application of DASH client optimization and artificial intelligence in the management and
operation of big data tourism hotels. Alexandria Engineering Journal. 2022; 61(1):81–90.
108. Broshi-Chen O, Mansfeld Y. A wasted invitation to innovate? Creativity and innovation in tourism crisis
management: A QC&IM approach. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management. 2021; 46:272–
83.
109. Gössling S. Tourism, information technologies and sustainability: an exploratory review. Journal of
Sustainable Tourism. 2017; 25(7):1024–41.
110. Lorente-Bayona LV, Gras-Gil E, Moreno-Enguix MdR. Internet penetration and international travel and
tourism expenditure: The role of foreign exchange control. Tourism Economics.
2021:13548166211027839.

Deng 2022 - Cultural Risk & International Tourism (Journal - Pone.0278518)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Deng 2022 - Cultural Risk & International Tourism (Journal - Pone.0278518)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PLOS ONE

The moderating role of informatization

Data Availability Statement: All data are present

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278518 December 16, 2022 1 / 26

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278518 December 16, 2022 2 / 26

Theoretical foundation and research hypotheses

Risk perception attitude framework

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278518 December 16, 2022 3 / 26

Fig 2. Risk perception attitude framework. Source: Chisty, Islam [44].

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278518 December 16, 2022 4 / 26

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278518 December 16, 2022 5 / 26

Data and methods

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278518 December 16, 2022 6 / 26

Table 1. Informatization index system.

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278518 December 16, 2022 7 / 26

Table 2. Descriptive statistical results of the variables.

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278518 December 16, 2022 8 / 26

lnTRit =lnTEit =lnTAit ¼ a0 þ a1 lnTRit 1 =lnTEit 1 =lnTAit 1 þ a2 lnPRit þ a3 lnOPLit

lnTRit =lnTEit =lnTAit ¼ a0 þ a1 lnTRit 1 =lnTEit 1 =lnTAit 1 þ a2 lnERit þ a3 lnOPLit

lnTRit =lnTEit =lnTAit ¼ a0 þ a1 lnTRit 1 =lnTEit 1 =lnTAit 1 þ a2 lnFRit þ a3 lnOPLit

Moderating effect model

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278518 December 16, 2022 9 / 26

lnTRit =lnTEit =lnTAit ¼ a0 þ a1 lnTRit =lnTEit =lnTAit þ a2 lnPRit þ a3 lnINFit þ a4 lnPRit �

lnTRit =lnTEit =lnTAit ¼ a0 þ a1 lnTRit =lnTEit =lnTAit þ a2 lnERit þ a3 lnINFit þ a4 lnERit �

lnTRit =lnTEit =lnTAit ¼ a0 þ a1 lnTRit =lnTEit =lnTAit þ a2 lnFRit þ a3 lnINFit þ a4 lnERit �

Table 3. Unit root test.

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278518 December 16, 2022 10 / 26

Table 4. Panel cointegration test.

Panel cointegration test

The impact of different risk types on international tourism

The impact of different risk types on TR

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278518 December 16, 2022 11 / 26

Table 5. The impact of different types of CRs on TR.

The impact of different risk types on TE

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278518 December 16, 2022 12 / 26

Table 6. The impact of different types of CRs on TE.

The impact of different risk types on TA

The impact of CR on tourism in different time periods

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278518 December 16, 2022 13 / 26

Table 7. The impact of different types of CRs on TA.

The impact of CR on tourism in different regions

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278518 December 16, 2022 14 / 26

Table 8. The impact of CR on international tourism in different time periods.

The impact of CR on tourism in countries with different income levels

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278518 December 16, 2022 15 / 26

Table 9. The impact of CR on tourism in different regions.

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278518 December 16, 2022 16 / 26

Conclusions and discussions

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278518 December 16, 2022 17 / 26

Table 11. The impact of CR on international tourism using different methods.

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278518 December 16, 2022 18 / 26

Table 12. The moderating effects of informatization.

middle-income countries, while international tourism in low-income countries is most

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278518 December 16, 2022 19 / 26

Specifically, informatization exhibits a positive impact on international tourism indicators,

Policy and managerial implications

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278518 December 16, 2022 20 / 26

Research limitations and future research directions

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278518 December 16, 2022 21 / 26

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278518 December 16, 2022 22 / 26

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278518 December 16, 2022 23 / 26

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278518 December 16, 2022 24 / 26