sustainability
Article
Online Reservation Intention of Tourist Attractions in the
COVID-19 Context: An Extended Technology Acceptance Model
Yuzong Zhao 1, *, Hui Wang 1 , Zhen Guo 2, *, Mingli Huang 3 , Yongtao Pan 1 and Yongrui Guo 1
Citation: Zhao, Y.; Wang, H.; Guo, Z.;
Huang, M.; Pan, Y.; Guo, Y. Online
Reservation Intention of Tourist
Attractions in the COVID-19 Context:
An Extended Technology Acceptance
Model. Sustainability 2022, 14, 10395.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su141610395
Academic Editor: Jan Van der Borg
Received: 26 July 2022
Accepted: 18 August 2022
Published: 21 August 2022
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Sustainability 2022, 14, 10395. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141610395
1 School of Tourism and Geography Science, Qingdao University, Qingdao 266071, China
2 Shenzhen Tourism College, Jinan University, Shenzhen 518053, China
3 College of Environmental Science and Engineering, Qingdao University, Qingdao 266071, China
* Correspondence: zhaoyuzong@qdu.edu.cn (Y.Z.); g1786084163@163.com (Z.G.);
Tel.: +86-139-0639-4253 (Y.Z.); +86-178-6084-9807 (Z.G.)
Abstract: Travel reservation is an important way to improve tourist experiences and digitally manage
tourist attractions in the COVID-19 context. However, few studies have focused on the online reserva-
tion intentions of tourist attractions and its influencing factors. Based on the theory of the technology
acceptance model (TAM), two variables (perceived risk and government policy) are introduced to ex-
pand on the theoretical model. This study investigates the influence of subjective norms, government
policy, perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and perceived risk on reservation intentions of
tourist attractions. An online survey was conducted in China, and 255 questionnaires were collected.
The data were analysed using SPSS 26.0 and AMOS 28.0 to construct a structural equation modelling
and analyse the path. The findings show that (1) subjective norms have no significant impact on
reservation behaviours under voluntary situations; (2) perceived usefulness positively affects tourists’
reservation intention; and (3) perceived risk has a significant negative impact on reservation intention,
and government policy is the main factor affecting tourists’ reservation intentions. These findings
enhance the understanding of tourists’ reservation intentions and extend the TAM theory. From the
practice perspective, tourist attraction operators should continue to strengthen the construction of
the reservation system, improve tourists’ experiences, reduce the perceived risk of tourists, and other
stakeholders such as the government should strengthen cooperation, promote the reservation system,
and create a good reservation atmosphere.
Keywords: reservation intentions; tourist attraction reservation; technology acceptance model (TAM);
perceived risk; government policy; structural equation modelling (SEM)
1. Introduction
Travel reservation systems have been one of the most important tourism marketing
channels [1,2]. From the perspective of tourists, and they can complete tour booking (a
process that includes information search, booking, and paying) in the most convenient way,
which helps realize personalized alternative selections and greater efficacy and efficiency [3].
Furthermore, reservation behaviours can also ensure tourists’ satisfaction with their travel
experiences [4]. From the perspective of tourism and hospitality industry stakeholders,
tourists’ reservation preferences can be understood, thus laying a foundation for the
construction of marketing channels [5]. In addition, an understanding of reservation can
help managers develop more reasonable pricing strategies [6]. Finally, online reviews have
become an important source of information reflecting the tourists’ reservation experiences,
which provides a reference for managers in improving the quality of travel services [7].
Previous research on online travel reservation mainly focused on the hotel indus-
try [8,9], lacking a focus on tourist attractions [10,11]. Tourists are the main users of
reservation services for tourist attractions, so it is necessary to study their reservation
intentions. On the one hand, it provides a wider perspective for travel reservation theories;
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
Sustainability 2022, 14, 10395 2 of 17

on the other hand, it can help improve the reservation system of tourist attractions, and
thus, enhance tourist satisfaction and safety.
Previous research on online travel reservations have used theories such as trust the-
ory [12], maturity theory [13], information search theory [14], self-efficacy theory [15],
etc. Among them, the TAM theory is widely applied to investigate online reservation
intentions [16,17]. A well-designed, user-friendly reservation website enhances the online
travel booking experience [18]. It is clear that information technology not only facilitates
the booking process but is also an important factor influencing reservation behaviour [19].
In the actual reservation process for tourist attractions, tourists need to face a complex
and diverse network and technological environment. At the same time, the COVID-19
pandemic has also promoted the digital transformation of tourist attractions [20]. Tourist
attractions in different tourism destinations have gradually reopened during the COVID-19
pandemic. Tourists prefer destinations close to home, especially short distances, and local
attractions appear to be dominant in the recovery phase [21]. On the premise of ensuring
tourist safety, the government and tourism industry sectors have implemented a travel
reservation and booking policy (i.e., ticket reservation, time-segment tour reservation,
and visitor interval entry) to promote domestic tourism markets in China. According to
statistics from the Ministry of Culture and Tourism of the People’s Republic of China, by
the end of 2021, more than 6000 A-level attractions in China offered online reservation
services. “No reservations, no travel” has been integrated into the travel life of residents. A
total of 58.7 percent of respondents expressed that they often use online travel reservation
platforms based on a special survey on tourist behaviour by the China Tourism Academy
in 2021. Normalized and high-frequency reservations for tourist attractions have become
the mainstream mode.
There exists the need to consider whether and how tourists perceive risks and external
variables of government policy, which affect tourist reservation intentions within the
COVID-19 context. Overall, considering the importance of tourists’ perspectives and
the role of technology in the tourist attraction reservation process, the study introduced
the technology acceptance model (TAM), which studies people’s willingness to use new
technologies and explores the influencing factors of tourists’ reservation intentions of
tourist attractions.
This study contributes to the body of knowledge about tourists’ reservation intentions
in the COVID-19 context in two ways. First, this study reveals the antecedents that affect
tourists’ reservation intentions. Second, this study extends TAM based on comprehensive
insight into understanding tourists’ reservation intentions. The findings shed light on the
theoretical investigation and sustainable development of reservation services.

2. Literature Review
2.1. Travel Reservations
Reservation services were first proposed in the study of medical outpatient service
in the 1950s [22] and later were widely applied to the transportation industry such as
railway [23] and aviation [24], as well as other industries such as tourism [25], in particular,
the hotel industry [26]. In recent years, travel reservations have developed rapidly with
the progression of information technology [9]. Currently, tourists can directly book a hotel
room/tourist attraction ticket through the official website or application provided by a
third party [27].
Zhang and Yuan [28] believe that travel reservations are a form of tourism spending
in which individual travel plans are arranged in advance of a predetermined time and
place, so that discounted prices can be taken advantage of. There is no doubt that the
aim of travel reservation services is to achieve a more economical and efficient mode to
benefit both management and tourists by rationally allocating tourism resources [29]. Using
the Internet as a new reservation method has become increasingly popular [30]. Some
researchers emphasized the technical attributes of travel reservations [19,31]. For example,
Elhaj [32] pointed out that online travel reservation was a type of booking method made
Sustainability 2022, 14, 10395 3 of 17

by tourists based on a network and booking platform. Later, scholars explored the online
consumption behaviour of tourists from consumer behaviour theories such as the theory of
planned behaviour (TPB) and theory of reasoned action (TRA) to study the factors affecting
tourist behaviours [33]. To the best of our knowledge, the factors that affect online tourist
attraction reservation intentions have not yet been investigated.
The COVID-19 pandemic has changed the environment for travel reservation. On the
one hand, there has been an opportunity for potential development on the supply side of
the tourism industry [34]. Initial indications are that the current crisis is accelerating the
digital transformation of the tourism sector [35]. On the other hand, there is a change on
the demand side of the tourism industry. The COVID-19 outbreak may have dramatically
changed tourists’ demand for visiting tourist destinations [36]. It is clear that travel
reservation is becoming a regular part of the traveling process. In addition, there is the
role of policy guidance. At the institutional level, the government has implemented many
policies to encourage the reservation system of tourist attractions in China. Therefore,
travel reservation services have developed rapidly under the dual role of policy promotion
and market demand [29].
With the advance of research, more attention is being paid to the reasons behind
tourists’ reservation intentions, including system quality and functional attributes [19,37],
the quality of reservation websites [38,39], information quality [40], and e-service qual-
ity [41]. Obviously, high-quality, useful, and reliable information and convenient and
advanced technology are the basal stimulants encouraging tourists to book. At the same
time, perceived risk is commonly examined as one of the various determinants of travel
reservation intentions that were affected by the pandemic [42].

2.2. The TAM

One of the most important theories to explore the acceptance and use of technology
by individuals is TAM, which provides a theoretical framework for the study of new
technologies and systems, such as internet technology and e-commerce. Davis (1989)
proposed the technology acceptance model through previous research on the TRA [33].
This model believes that perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use are the main
measures of attitudes, which can affect behavioural intentions and have a profound impact
on users. At the same time, external variables affect perceived usefulness and perceived
ease of use. Perceived ease of use affects perceived usefulness.
With the booming tourism industry and the breakthrough of internet technology, schol-
ars have applied TAM to tourism research. Wober and Gretzel [43] tracked and investigated
the use of marketing decision support systems by tourism managers in many European
countries to study the factors that affect users of information systems. With the emergence
of new technologies, scholars have begun to shift from focusing on travel websites and
mobile devices to new technologies, such as virtual tourism and artificial intelligence. For
example, Kaplanidou and Vogt [44] studied the influence of the characteristics of the tourist
destination website on the tourists’ perceived usefulness of the website. Later, scholars were
more interested in the research on tourists’ trust in websites [45]. Agag and El-Masry [46]
used a structural equation model to explore tourists’ trust in online travel websites and
influencing factors. With the increased use of smartphones by tourists, Lew et al. [47]
expanded the mobile technology acceptance model by introducing self-efficacy theory,
critical mass theory, and mobility theory. El-Said and Aziz [48] explored the acceptance of
virtual tourism by tourists in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.
With the emergence of new technologies and changing objects of use, scholars have
been enriching and expanding TAM and have formed two main branches. One is to test
the robustness of the technology acceptance model and the credibility of the relationship
between internal variables [49]. The other is to integrate or expand the TAM by introducing
new theories and improving the explanatory power of the TAM in specific objects and spe-
cific technology situations by adding external variables [50,51] and tourism industries [36].
Agag and El-Masry [52] introduced commitment-trust theory to study the determinants of
Sustainability 2022, 14, 10395 4 of 17

customers’ online hotel reservations. Disztinger et al. [53] expanded the TAM by adding
the variable of perceived immersion. It has been found that mobile Internet technology not
only brings convenience, but also security risks [54]. Therefore, scholars have introduced
variables such as perceived risk within the TAM model [55,56].
Information technology has changed constantly, and tourist attraction has become
increasingly intellectualized and digitalised. Meanwhile, tourists are becoming increasingly
diversified and personalized. Therefore, it is necessary to explore the acceptance behaviour
of tourists towards new things, such as tourists’ reservations, according to changes in
the technology and characteristics of tourists. In summary, based on the TAM, this paper
comprehensively considers the risk of COVID-19 and the guiding role of policies in China’s
research scenarios and introduces two new variables, namely, perceived risk and govern-
ment policy, to extend the TAM. The structural equation model (SEM) was used to study
the behavioural willingness of tourists to make reservations in the post-epidemic era and
provide more research angles in terms of travel reservation and the TAM.

3. Hypothesis Development and Conceptual Model

3.1. Variable Definitions and Research Hypotheses
3.1.1. Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and Reservation Intention
In the TAM, perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use can be regarded as
the cognitive level of individual attitudes and the performance of consumers’ perceived
value. Perceived usefulness refers to the individual’s belief that the use of a new system or
technology can improve work efficiency [33]. Perceived ease of use refers to the individual’s
belief that a certain system or technology is easy to implement [33]. In tourism activities,
perceived usefulness refers to the role that making reservations plays for tourist attractions,
and perceived ease of use is the convenience that tourists feel when using the reservation
system, including the official website of a tourist attraction or application provided by
a third party. Studies have shown that both perceived usefulness and perceived ease
of use have positive effects on individuals’ reservation intention, and there is a positive
correlation between perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness [57]. Perceived ease
of use indirectly affects reservation intention through perceived usefulness [58]. If the
reservation system cannot provide convenient and effective services for tourists, this
perceived difficulty will inevitably make tourists question the usefulness of reservation
services and then affect their reservation intentions. According to the above theoretical and
actual situation analysis, the following hypotheses are proposed:

Hypothesis 1 (H1). Tourists’ perceived usefulness has a positive impact on their reservation
intentions for tourist attractions.

Hypothesis 2 (H2). Tourists’ perceived ease of use has a positive impact on their perceived
usefulness in tourist attraction.

3.1.2. Perceived Risk and Reservation Intention

Since the 1960s, the theory of perceived risk has been used to explain consumer be-
haviours [59]. Perceived risk is not objective risk in the real world but remains a subjectively
determined expectation of loss by consumers [60]. According to the protective action de-
cision model and perceived risk model [59], perceived risk has a significant impact on
consumer behaviour when customers receive new information. Given the immateriality
of tourism services, perceived risk can become more important [60]. In particular, the
perceived risk of online communication and shopping behaviours in tourism has been
studied [25,61]. When tourists’ perception of risk increases, they have been shown to
change or cancel their booking behaviours. Lin et al. [62] argued that perceived risk nega-
tively affects online travel booking intention. After the outbreak of COVID-19, Nazneen
et al. [63] found that COVID-19 altered travel risk perceptions in China, which negatively
affected travel decisions. Bae and Chang [64] also found that both cognitive risk perception
Sustainability 2022, 14, 10395 5 of 17

and emotional risk perception have an impact on reservation intention. Generally, the
risks faced by tourists include inconsistency between expectations and actual products
or services, leakage of personal privacy information, and the unnecessary waste of time
and energy. These risks further hinder the reservation willingness to use the reservation
system. Both before and after the outbreak of COVID-19, perceived risk is consistently a
determinant of reservation intention [42]. Therefore, the following hypothesis is proposed:

Hypothesis 3 (H3). Tourists’ perceived risk has a negative impact on their reservation intention
for tourist attractions.

3.1.3. Subjective Norms and Reservation Intention

The TPB uses the variable “subjective norms”, which are social pressures individuals
perceive when making adoption decisions and are defined as “an individual’s view of the
importance of others in his or her social environment when they expect him or her to act in
a certain way” [65,66]. The beliefs behind subjective norms are called normative beliefs,
and generally speaking, if a person believes that most people think he should behave that
way, he will feel social pressure and then comply. Accordingly, existing research mainly
focuses on exploring the relationship between subjective norm and motivation, intention
and behaviour. Furthermore, previous studies have shown that subjective norms positively
influence the formation of reservation intention [67,68]. For example, Venkatesh and
Davis [69] found that perceived usefulness was affected by subjective norms. In addition to
indirect effects, subjective norms also have an impact on intention in involuntary situations.
Similarly, Bhatiasevi and Yoopetch [70] found that subjective norms can influence tourists’
willingness to use e-booking. That is, subjective norms can predict reservation intention.
According to the above theoretical and actual situational analysis, the following assumption
is put forward:

Hypothesis 4 (H4). Tourists’ subjective norms have a positive impact on their reservation intention
for tourist attractions.

3.1.4. Government Policy and Reservation Intention

The development of China’s tourism economy has been gradually promoted under
the government-led model. That is, the local and central government are considered critical
stakeholders for the sustainable development of tourism [71]. With the COVID-19 pan-
demic, government support is critical for businesses [72], especially those in the tourism
and hospitality sectors [73]. As Wright [72] stated, the tourism industry needs government
stimulus packages and interventions to reduce the harmful impact COVID-19 has had.
Therefore, to control the spread of infectious disease and protect tourists’ health and safety,
collaboration between public health, tourism authorities, and the tourism industry is neces-
sary [74,75]. Moreover, Ritchie and Jiang [76] also affirmed that a greater understanding
of the effectiveness and efficiency of government policies was needed in times of crisis.
Tourist attraction reservation was one of the government policies implemented to deal with
the impact of the epidemic in China.
Diversified booking channels, including instant messaging tools, mobile phone clients,
the official website of tourist attractions, telephone booking, etc., can provide tourists
with a good travel experience and humanized service. Therefore, the government has
promoted online reservation through the public media, highlighting the convenience it
brings to consumers in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. According to the agenda
setting theory [77], when the news media emphasizes certain attributes of an object, people’s
understanding of the object is necessarily affected by the agenda of those attributes. Tourism
consumers accept the agenda set by the government and the media, and then actively
participate in tourist attraction reservations, that is, an active travel reservation policy can
also encourage tourists to experience the usefulness of tourist attraction reservations in the
post-pandemic era. In addition, the publicity of the government and public media on tourist

Sustainability 2022, 14, 10395
moted online reservation through the public media, highlighting the convenience it brings
to consumers in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. According to the agenda setting
theory [77], when the news media emphasizes certain attributes of an object, people’s un-
derstanding of the object is necessarily affected by the agenda of those attributes. Tourism
consumers accept the agenda set by the government and the media, and then actively
participate in tourist attraction reservations, that is, an active travel reservation policy 6canof 17

also encourage tourists to experience the usefulness of tourist attraction reservations in

the post-pandemic era. In addition, the publicity of the government and public media on
tourist reservations
reservations will
will also also directly
directly affect
affect the the intention
intention ofto
of tourists tourists to make reservations.
make reservations. According
According to the
to the above above theoretical
theoretical and actualand actual situational
situational analysis,
analysis, the the assumptions
following following assump-
are put
forward:
tions are put forward:

Hypothesis5 5(H5).
Hypothesis Governmentpolicy
(H5).Government policyhas
hasa apositive
positiveimpact
impactonontourists’
tourists’perceived
perceivedusefulness
usefulnessofof
reservationservices.
reservation services.

Hypothesis6 6(H6).
Hypothesis (H6).Government
Governmentpolicy
policyhas
hasa apositive
positiveimpact
impactonontourists’
tourists’reservation
reservationintentions.
intentions.

3.2.
3.2.Conceptual
ConceptualModel
Model
According
According tothe
to theabove
aboveassumptions,
assumptions,combined
combinedwith
withthe
theTAM,
TAM,the
theconceptual
conceptualmodel
model
isisprovided
providedininFigure
Figure1.1.

Conceptualmodel.
Figure1.1.Conceptual
Figure model.

4. Methodology
4. Methodology
4.1. Measurement of Variables
All constructs were assessed by a 5 point Likert scale (1 = completely disagree to
5 = completely agree). Perceived usefulness was measured by 4 items, and perceived ease
of use was measured by 3 items adapted from Davis et al. [78] and Yen et al. [79]. A 5 item
scale to measure perceived risk was applied and modified from the study by Jacoby and
Kaplan [80], and Peter and Tarpey [81]. The scale, related to subjective norms, consisted
of 3 items adapted from Wang [82] and Verma [83]. Government policy was assessed by
5 items adapted from Wang and Shou [84]. Reservation intention was also measured via a
4 item scale derived from Davis et al. [78].

4.2. Data Collection and Sample Profile

The formal questionnaire was conducted online on Questionnaire Star on 28 March
2022. As of 5 April 2022, a total of 305 online questionnaires were collected, 255 of which
were valid, which met the sample size standard of AMOS [85]. The data show that the
Sustainability 2022, 14, 10395 7 of 17

proportions of males and females were 32.5% and 67.5%, respectively. The imbalance
between males and females may be related to the respondents of the online questionnaire.
From the perspective of age, the number of people aged 21–30 is the largest, with 202 people,
accounting for 79.2% of the sample. In terms of education level, there were 244 people
with junior college or bachelor’s and master’s degrees or above, accounting for 95.7% of
the population; 12.2% of the respondents were employees of enterprises, civil servants, or
employed by public institutions. In addition, 59.6% of the respondents were students.

4.3. Data Analysis

This paper uses SPSS 26.0 to obtain the descriptive properties of the respondents. The
reliability analysis was measured by Cronbach’s alpha values, and the validity analysis was
performed by principal component analysis to reduce the dimension. Finally, AMOS 28.0
was used for SEM construction and path analysis.

5. Results
5.1. Nonresponse Bias and Common Method Bias
According to Armstrong and Overton’s suggestion [86], SPSS 26.0 was used in this
paper to conduct a non-response bias test of the questionnaire. First, the questionnaire was
divided into two parts according to the time sequence of return: early responders (the first
25% of the questionnaires) and late responders (the last 25% of the returned questionnaires).
Second, the two groups were compared by the chi-square test. The results showed that
there were no significant differences in the control variables of gender between the two
groups at the 5% confidence interval. Therefore, this study excluded the possibility of
nonresponse bias.
In addition, Harman’s single-factor test was used to evaluate potential common
method bias. All items are loaded into an exploratory factor analysis, the results of the
non-rotating factor analysis are checked, and the minimum number of factors required
to explain the variance of the variables is determined. When only one factor is extracted
or it has strong explanatory power, it must be considered that there is a serious common
method bias. According to the results of this study, the contribution rate of the general
factors is not more than 50%, the first factor accounted for 27.8%, and the total contribution
rate of the six factors is 65.7%. It can be seen that there is no common method bias.

5.2. Measurement Model

Measurement model evaluation usually included testing for reliability, convergent, and
discriminant validity. Reliability assessment depends on Cronbach’s α and the composite
reliability (CR) (see Table 1), values of 0.7 to 0.9 are considered as satisfactory [87].
The data show that the Cronbach’s α values of the six variables are all above 0.74.
After each item was deleted, there was no significant improvement in the reliability of
each scale. At the same time, all CR values are higher than 0.7. Therefore, the reliability of
the questionnaire is very good, and the internal stability and consistency are high. These
results suggest that the measurement model is reliable and valid.
Convergent validity is assessed using the average variance extracted (AVE) for each
construct (see Table 1). The AVE values of all constructs are between 0.37 and 0.612 in this
study. Although the AVE value of perceived risk is less than 0.5, the composite reliability is
higher than 0.6 and in the acceptable range of 0.36 to 0.5 [88].
This study presents the results of discriminant validity assessment using Fornell-
Larcker criterion [88] and the heterotrait-monotrait ratio of correlations (HTMT) [89]. The
square root of each construct’s AVE is higher than the correlations with other constructs,
so the Fornell-Larcker criterion was fulfilled (see Table 2). HTMT is the ratio of the mean
of indicator correlation between different constructs to the mean of indicator correlation
between same constructs. As shown in Table 3, the values of HTMT do not exceed the
required threshold value of 0.90 by Gold et al. [90]. These results suggest that discriminant
validity is achieved.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 10395 8 of 17

Table 1. Descriptive statistics, reliability, and validity of the constructs.

Constructs and Items Mean SD Loading AVE CR Cronbach’s α

Perceived Usefulness 0.504 0.802 0.798
PU1: Making a tourist attraction reservation would improve the
3.85 0.741 0.663
travel experience
PU2: Making a tourist attraction reservation would reduce the
3.98 0.820 0.706
information search cost
PU3: Making a tourist attraction reservation would enhance the
4.01 0.796 0.790
tour efficiency
PU4: Making a tourist attraction reservation would promote the
3.92 0.868 0.675
security in the travel
Perceived Ease of Use 0.561 0.793 0.792
PEOU1: I found it is easy to employ the reservation system in
3.73 0.847 0.749
practice
PEOU2: I found it is easy to operate the reservation system
3.72 0.908 0.770
expertly
PEOU3: I found the reservation system easy to understand 3.82 0.875 0.728
Perceived Risk 0.370 0.743 0.742
PR1: I think that tourist attraction reservation would be risky 2.90 0.954 0.612
PR2: I think that the products or services booked for the tourist
3.29 0.876 0.630
attraction would not be consistent with reality
PR3: I think that tourist attraction reservation would lead to a
2.89 1.029 0.702
financial loss
PR4: I think that tourist attraction reservation would lead to
3.39 0.949 0.466
personal information leakage
PR5: I think that tourist attraction reservation would lead to a
2.80 1.078 0.605
loss of convenience
Subjective Norms 0.516 0.761 0.758
SN1: People I am familiar with would make reservation when
3.27 0.997 0.683
they visited a tourist attraction
SN2: People whose opinions I value would prefer that I make a
3.27 1.035 0.788
tourist attraction reservation
SN3: Most people who are important to me think that I should
3.61 0.911 0.678
make a tourist attraction reservation
Government Policy 0.612 0.886 0.885
GP1: The government has encouraged everyone to make a
3.74 0.767 0.675
tourist attraction reservation
GP2: The government has supported the construction of tourist
3.69 0.781 0.789
attractions reservation system
GP3: The government has created a good social atmosphere for
3.71 0.795 0.793
tourist attraction reservation
GP4: The government has developed reservation policy to
3.73 0.808 0.810
facilitate the travel during the pandemic
GP5: The government has developed a reservation policy to
3.78 0.801 0.831
ensure the travel safety during the pandemic
Reservation Intentions 0.559 0.835 0.832
RI 1: I would like to use the tourist attraction reservation system 4.07 0.681 0.780
RI 2: I would make a tourist attraction reservation in the future 4.14 0.696 0.699
RI 3: I would recommend others to make a tourist attraction
3.82 0.788 0.715
reservation
RI 4: If there is a plan to visit a tourist attraction, I will give
4.08 0.746 0.793
priority to make a reservation
Sustainability 2022, 14, 10395 9 of 17

Table 2. Fornell-Larcker criterion results.

1 2 3 4 5 6
1. Perceived Usefulness 0.71
2. Perceived Ease of Use 0.59 0.75
3. Perceived Risk −0.08 −0.16 0.61
4. Subjective Norms 0.21 0.27 0.25 0.72
5. Government Policy 0.48 0.52 −0.02 0.36 0.78
6. Reservation Intention 0.49 0.44 −0.33 0.17 0.58 0.75
Note: Values on the bolded diagonal are the square root of the AVE.

Table 3. HTMT results.

1 2 3 4 5 6
1. Perceived Usefulness
2. Perceived Ease of Use 0.61
3. Perceived Risk 0.18 0.19
4. Subjective Norms 0.25 0.28 0.26
5. Government Policy 0.49 0.51 0.09 0.37
6. Reservation Intention 0.50 0.48 0.32 0.23 0.60

Validity is the basis for measuring whether the item design is reasonable (see Table 4).
The overall KMO value was 0.859, greater than 0.6, and the χ2 statistic test value was
2631.589 (p < 0.001), which met the conditions of exploratory factor analysis. After the
maximum variance orthogonal rotation of principal component analysis, it was found that
there were 6 common factors with the eigenvalue of the questionnaire greater than 1, and
the cumulative variance contribution rate was 65.66%, which was greater than 60%, which
met the research requirements. The factor loadings of the 24 measurement items were all
greater than 0.5, and they belonged to different dimensions, which were in line with the
expected assumptions, indicating that the questionnaire design was reasonable.

Table 4. Rotated component matrix.

Rotated Factor Loading Values

Measurement Items
Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5 Factor 6
GP 3 0.824
GP 2 0.804
GP 5 0.802
GP 4 0.760
GP 1 0.649
RI 1 0.783
RI 4 0.753
RI 3 0.730
RI 2 0.704
PU 2 0.794
PU 3 0.788
PU 1 0.685
PU 4 0.665
PR 5 0.731
PR 2 0.713
PR 4 0.704
PR 3 0.674
PR 1 0.613
PEOU 2 0.789
PEOU 3 0.775
PEOU 1 0.725
SN 2 0.845
SN 1 0.817
SN 3 0.709
Sustainability 2022, 14, 10395 10 of 17

Table 4. Cont.

Rotated Factor Loading Values

Measurement Items
Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5 Factor 6
Eigenvalues 3.571 2.812 2.596 2.511 2.177 2.091
Variance explained rate after
14.877 11.717 10.817 10.462 9.070 8.711
rotation (%)
Cumulative variance explained rate
14.877 26.594 37.411 47.873 56.943 65.654
after rotation (%)

5.3. Structural Model

Before hypothesis testing, the model fit indices’ ability to meet the requirements needs
to be examined. In this paper, 11 indices such as χ2 /df, absolute fit indices (GFI, AGFI,
RMSEA) and value added fit indices (CFI, IFI, NFI, TLI), and parsimony corrected fit
indices (PCFI, PNFI, PGFI) were selected to test the model fit (see Table 5). The data show
that, except for the three indices of GFI, AGFI, and NFI, all other indices have reached the
reference standard in the initial structural model. To enhance the degree of fit between
the theoretical model and the actual model of the sample, the initial model needs further
modification [91].

Table 5. Model fit indices.

χ2 /df GFI AGFI CFI IFI NFI TLI RMSEA PCFI PNFI PGFI
Ideal value 1~3 >0.9 >0.9 >0.9 >0.9 >0.9 >0.9 <0.08 >0.5 >0.5 >0.5
Initial model 1.845 0.875 0.843 0.917 0.918 0.838 0.905 0.058 0.798 0.728 0.700
Modified model I 1.784 0.885 0.855 0.928 0.929 0.852 0.917 0.056 0.800 0.734 0.699
Modified model II 1.180 0.929 0.901 0.985 0.985 0.912 0.981 0.027 0.763 0.707 0.660

The modified model I takes the method of adding and subtracting observed variables.
The normalized factor loading value should be greater than 0.50 and not greater than 0.95.
Referring to this criterion, the observed variable PR4 should be deleted. After deletion, the
χ2 /df value of the model was changed, and other fit indices improved. The modified model
II involved the method of revising the covariance of the residuals of the variables. Since
the correlation between the variable residuals was not considered when constructing the
theoretical model, the model fitting effect will be affected by the strongly correlated variable
residuals. Referring to this standard and combining the correction indices provided by
AMOS, the study established a correlation between the variable residuals with correlation
and, after many operations, until the variable residuals were uncorrelated. The modified
models’ fit indices were as follows in Table 5. The data show that the χ2 /df value of the
model has changed, and all fit indices meet the reference standard.
According to the results, each model modification can reduce the χ2 /df value, and
other fit indices can be significantly improved. Therefore, these modifications are feasible
in theory, and the model modification results are accepted. When another attempt was
made to establish the connection between observed variables of different dimensions, it
was found that the new structural relationship was not as ideal as the modified model II,
so the modified model II was finally selected in this study (see Figure 2).
The results of hypothesis testing in this study are shown in Table 6.
Among the cognitive variables, perceived usefulness has a significantly positive effect
on tourists’ reservation intentions for tourist attractions (β = 0.16, p = 0.03), while tourists’
perceived ease of use has a positive effect on perceived usefulness (β = 0.46, p < 0.001).
Tourists’ reservation intention was also significantly affected by perceived risk (β = −0.32,
p < 0.001). Thus, H1~H3 were supported.
 in theory, and the model modification results are accepted. When another at
made to establish the connection between observed variables of different dim
was found that the new structural relationship was not as ideal as the modifie
Sustainability 2022, 14, so
10395the modified model II was finally selected in this study (see Figure
11 of2).
17

Figure 2. The SEM of online reservation intentions for tourist attractions.

Figure 2. TheAmong
SEM oftheonline
externalreservation intentions
variables, subjective normsfor
havetourist attractions.
no significant effect on tourists’
reservation intentions (β = 0.07, p = 0.355). Government policy has a significantly positive
effect on both perceived usefulness (β = 0.24, p = 0.003) and tourists’ reservation intentions
The(βresults
= 0.47, p of hypothesis
< 0.001). testing
Thus, H4 was in this and
not supported, study
H5~H6arewere
shown in Table 6.
supported.
Among the cognitive variables, perceived usefulness has a significantly p
Table 6. Results of hypothesis testing.
fect on tourists’ reservation intentions for tourist attractions (β = 0.16, p = 0.03), w
ists’ perceived ease of useEstimated
Hypotheses/Path has a positive
Value effect
t-Value on perceived
p-Value usefulness
Results (β = 0.46
H1. Perceived Usefulness →Reservation Intention
Tourists’ reservation intention0.16
H2. Perceived Ease of Use →Perceived Usefulness 0.46
2.165
was also significantly
4.989
0.030
0.000
Supported
affected by perceived risk
Supported
H3. Perceived Riskp→<Reservation Intention H1~H3 were−supported.
0.001). Thus, 0.32 −4.092 0.000 Supported
H4. Subjective Norms →Reservation Intention 0.07 0.924 0.355 Not supported
H5. Government Policy →Among the external variables,
Perceived Usefulness 0.24 subjective
2.932 norms have
0.003 no significant
Supported effect o
H6. Government Policy →Reservation Intention 0.47 5.589 0.000 Supported
reservation intentions (β = 0.07, p = 0.355). Government policy has a significant
6. Discussion and Conclusions
6.1. Conclusions
This study takes the TAM as the theoretical basis to investigate the online reservation
intentions for tourist attractions and its influencing factors. Two variables (perceived risk
and government policy) were introduced to expand the theoretical model in the COVID-19
context.
An online survey was conducted in China and derived from a sample of 255 through
the Questionnaire Star platform, the data for this research were analysed using SPSS 26.0
and AMOS 28.0. Then, this study analysed the influence of subjective norms, government
policy, perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and perceived risk on reservation
intention for tourist attractions.
Based on the above research, this paper draws the following conclusions: (1) subjective
norms have no significant impact on reservation behaviour under voluntary situations;
Sustainability 2022, 14, 10395 12 of 17

(2) perceived usefulness positively affects tourists’ reservation intentions; and (3) perceived
risk has a significant negative impact on reservation intentions, and government policy is
the main factor affecting tourists’ reservation intentions. Compared with perceived risk,
the external variable of government policy has a greater impact on tourists’ reservation
intentions.

6.2. Theoretical Implications

The primary objectives of this study are to identify tourists’ reservation intentions
for tourist attractions in the COVID-19 context and to measure the influencing factors via
the extended TAM. Specifically, the findings advance reservation services research in the
following three ways.
First, this study contributes to the understanding of tourists’ intentions to reserve
tourist attractions on theoretical grounds. While the development of hotel online booking
is gaining popularity [8,26], previous studies on tourist attraction reservation is insufficient.
This research fills this gap in the literature regarding which important aspects tourists
consider when booking tourist attractions. Based on the TPB, the TAM is introduced in
this study to analyse tourists’ intentions to reserve tourist attractions. Obviously, the devel-
opment of information technology has become the basic support for the implementation
of reservation systems. Some prior studies have also analysed the effects of technological
factors on tourists’ reservation preferences [19,29]. In the same way, these results show that
tourists’ perceived usefulness of the reservation systems positively affects their reservation
intention. Tourists’ perceived ease of use positively affects perceived usefulness. These
findings revalidate the value of the TAM in the study of reservation intention and further
support the research of Li and Zhang [58].
Second, according to the rapid development of travel reservations in China and the
change in tourists’ travel behaviour since COVID-19, the variables of perceived risk and
government policy are integrated into the TAM. The extended model not only confirms the
predictive role of risk perception on reservation intentions, but also effectively improves
the explanatory ability of the model, and helps deepen the understanding of reservation
intention. The significant impact of the risk variable on reservation intention has been
verified. Perceived risk is commonly examined as one of the various determinants of travel
reservation intentions that were affected by the pandemic [42]. In the face of complex
information, virtual networks, and the spread of the COVID-19 epidemic, tourists will
inevitably feel the risks, such as personal information, time, money, public health, and other
aspects. These situations lead to tourists’ concerns about the safety of tourist attractions
and reservation services, which in turn, affects their intention to make reservations. Tourist
attraction reservation is the management measure advocated by the Chinese government
in the context of COVID-19. To a certain extent, tourists’ reservation has significantly
promoted. Therefore, it is reasonable to introduce risk and policy variables in this study,
and the results of the study also show that it is necessary to expand TAM.
Finally, this study found that the influence path of subjective norms is not sup-
ported, i.e., tourists’ subjective norms do not significantly affect their reservation intentions.
Tourists’ reservation intentions are generated in a situation of voluntary use, so social pres-
sure from surrounding people may not directly affect individual reservation intention. This
result validates Venkatesh and Davis’s [69] view that “subjective norms have no significant
effect on intentions in voluntary situations”. Although in TPB [92], subjective norms are
factors that directly affect behavioural intentions, Davis [33] did not use subjective norms
in the original TAM. Mathieson’s [93] study also showed that subjective norms do not have
a significant impact on reservation intention.

6.3. Practical Implications

These results have important implications for tourist attraction managers. Through
online reservation systems, the query and traceability of tourist information can be realized,
which is an indispensable means for tourist attractions to ensure safe operation under the
Sustainability 2022, 14, 10395 13 of 17

normalization of epidemic prevention and control. At the same time, the operators and
managers of tourist attractions should continuously strengthen the functional construction
of the reservation system to improve the perceived usefulness of tourists, so that tourists
can reserve and purchase tickets reasonably according to the bookable volume of the
destination before departure, accurately plan the route, and arrange the itinerary reasonably.
In addition to providing online ticket reservation and time segment tour reservation
services, tourist attractions also need to actively develop digital experience products and
popularize intelligent services (such as electronic maps, route recommendations, voice
guides, information inquiry, feedback, etc.). It is necessary to constantly optimize the
interaction between tourist attractions and users, which improves tourists’ perceived
ease of use. Measures that can be taken include improving the timeliness of information
provision, attaching great importance to the personal experience of users, and reducing the
cost of information search for tourists.
The findings suggest that perceived risk is a negative determinant of booking in-
tentions. Tourist attraction managers should pay attention to the security of reservation
systems to reduce the perceived risks for tourists. The personal privacy information of
tourists should be guaranteed to eliminate the possible disclosure risk. On the tourism
destination level, the government should continue to promote the convenience of the “reser-
vation system” and formulate reservation regulations. Using big data, cloud computing,
the Internet of Things, and other means to build a smart tourism system can promote
reservation services ability for tourist attractions. At the same time, the government needs
to expand channels for booking and cooperate with stakeholders, such as tourism enter-
prises, tourist attractions, tour leaders, and communities, to create a good reservation
environment [94,95].
According to the findings, reservation systems have an impact on tourist decision
making and behavioural intention which would aid in destination marketing. This study
shows that destination marketing organisations (DMOs) and tourist attraction marketers
should improve promotional materials and content of online reservation platforms to meet
market expectations [96]. Thus, during the time of the COVID-19 pandemic, tourists can
use online reservation applications that allow them to easily and securely obtain destination
information and compare products and prices, etc. [97,98].

6.4. Limitations and Future Research

Several limitations of this study should be acknowledged, which may provide guid-
ance for future research. Firstly, due to the impact of COVID-19, this study used a con-
venience sample of tourists through the Questionnaire Star platform. It is necessary to
conduct a face to face survey. Secondly, the respondents in this study were Chinese tourists
only. However, the differences in perceived risk might be influenced by cultural context.
Thus, future research could investigate tourists’ reservation intentions for tourist attractions
in different cultural backgrounds.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, Y.Z.; data curation, Z.G. and H.W.; formal analysis, Z.G.,
H.W. and Y.Z.; funding acquisition, Y.Z.; investigation, Z.G. and M.H.; methodology, Y.Z., Z.G. and
Y.G.; project administration, Y.P. and Y.G.; writing—original draft, Z.G., Y.P. and Y.Z. All authors have
read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by the National Social Science Foundation of China (Grant
No. 19BJY215).
Institutional Review Board Statement: Approval for the study was not required in accordance with
local/national legislation.
Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
Data Availability Statement: The data presented in this study are available on request from the
author. The data are not publicly available due to potential copyright problems.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 10395 14 of 17

References
1. Ert, E.; Fleischer, A. Mere position effect in booking hotels online. J. Travel Res. 2016, 55, 311–321. [CrossRef]
2. San-Martín, S.; Jiménez, N.; Liébana-Cabanillas, F. Tourism value VS barriers to booking trips online. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2020,
53, 101957. [CrossRef]
3. Kim, M.-J.; Chung, N.; Lee, C.-K. The effect of perceived trust on electronic commerce: Shopping online for tourism products and
services in South Korea. Tour. Manag. 2011, 32, 256–265. [CrossRef]
4. Fernández-Herrero, M.; Hernández-Maestro, R.M.; González-Benito, Ó. Autonomy in trip planning and overall satisfaction.
J. Travel Tour. Mark. 2017, 35, 119–129. [CrossRef]
5. Murphy, H.C.; Chen, M.-M.; Cossutta, M. An investigation of multiple devices and information sources used in the hotel booing
process. Tour. Manag. 2016, 52, 44–51. [CrossRef]
6. Wen, J.; Lin, Z.; Liu, X.; Xiao, S.H.; Li, Y. The interaction effects of online reviews, brand, and price on consumer hotel booking
decision making. J. Travel Res. 2020, 60, 846–859. [CrossRef]
7. Sparks, B.A.; Browning, V. The impact of online reviews on hotel booking intentions and perception of trust. Tour. Manag. 2011,
32, 1310–1323. [CrossRef]
8. Masiero, L.; Viglia, G.; Nieto-Garcia, M. Strategic consumer behavior in online hotel booking. Ann. Tour. Res. 2020, 83, 102947.
[CrossRef]
9. Boto-García, D.; Zapico, E.; Escalonilla, M.; Baños Pino, J.F. Tourists’ preferences for hotel booking. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2021, 92,
102726. [CrossRef]
10. Wang, X.; Li, X.R.; Zhen, F.; Zhang, J. How smart is your tourist attraction?: Measuring tourist preferences of smart tourism
attractions via a FCEM-AHP and IPA approach. Tour. Manag. 2016, 54, 309–320. [CrossRef]
11. Srivastava, P.; Kinshuk, S.; Ajay, K.; Baidyanath, B.; Alessio, I. Post-epidemic factors influencing customer's booking intent for a
hotel or leisure spot: An empirical study. J. Enterp. Inf. Manag. 2021, 35, 78–99. [CrossRef]
12. Burgess, S.; Sellitto, C.; Cox, C.; Buultjens, J. Trust perceptions of online travel information by different content creators: Some
social and legal implications. Serv. Ind. J. 2011, 13, 221–235. [CrossRef]
13. Jiang, J.; Liang, F. A mechanism study on the impact of tourism e-commerce maturity on the e-travel booking intention: As a case
with ctrip. Tour. Trib. 2014, 29, 75–83. (In Chinese)
14. Gursoy, D.; Chen, J.S. Competitive analysis of cross cultural information search behavior. Tour. Manag. 1997, 24, 503–523.
[CrossRef]
15. Vijayasarathy, L.R. Predicting consumer intentions to use on-line shopping: The case for an augmented technology acceptance
model. Inform. Manag. 2004, 41, 747–762. [CrossRef]
16. Sevim, N.; Yüncü, D.; HALL, E.E. Analysis of the extended technology acceptance model in online travel products. J. Internet
Appl. Manag. 2017, 8, 45–61. [CrossRef]
17. Wicaksono, A.; Maharani, A. The effect of perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use on the technology acceptance model to
use online travel agency. J. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2020, 1, 313–328. [CrossRef]
18. Lu, J. Development, distribution and evaluation of online tourism services in China. Electron. Commer. Res. 2004, 4, 39–221.
[CrossRef]
19. Elci, A.; Abubakar, A.M.; Ilkan, M.; Kolawole, E.K.; Lasisi, T.T. The impact of travel 2.0 on travelers booking and reservation
behaviors. Bus. Perspect. Res. 2017, 5, 124–136. [CrossRef]
20. Ndou, V.; Mele, G.; Hysa, E.; Manta, O. Exploiting technology to deal with the covid-19 challenges in travel & tourism: A
bibliometric analysis. Sustainability 2022, 14, 5917.
21. Li, X.; Gong, J.; Gao, B.; Yuan, P. Impacts of COVID-19 on tourists’ destination preferences: Evidence from China. Ann. Tour. Res.
2021, 90, 103258. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
22. Bailey, N.T.J. A study of queues and appointment systems in hospital out-patient departments, with special reference to waiting-
times. J. R. Stat. Soc. B 1952, 14, 185–199. [CrossRef]
23. Tsai, T.-H. A self-learning advanced booking model for railway arrival forecasting. Transp. Res. Part C Emerg. Technol. 2014, 39,
80–93. [CrossRef]
24. Haerian, L.; Homem-de-Mello, T.; Mount-Campbell, C.A. Modeling revenue yield of reservation systems that use nested capacity
protection strategies. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2006, 104, 340–353. [CrossRef]
25. Park, S.; Tussyadiah, I.P. Multidimensional facets of perceived risk in mobile travel booking. J. Travel Res. 2016, 56, 854–867.
[CrossRef]
26. Gao, G.-X.; Bi, J.-W. Hotel booking through online travel agency: Optimal Stackelberg strategies under customer-centric payment
service. Ann. Tour. Res. 2021, 86, 103074. [CrossRef]
27. Ahmad, W.; Kim, W.G.; Choi, H.-M.; Haq, J.U. Modeling behavioral intention to use travel reservation apps: A cross-cultural
examination between US and China. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2021, 63, 102689. [CrossRef]
28. Zhang, A.; Yuan, J. Reservation tourism: Exploration of new forms of tourism consumption. Tour. Surv. 2011, 4, 176–177.
(In Chinese)
29. Han, Y.; Zhang, T.; Wang, M. Holiday travel behavior analysis and empirical study with integrated travel reservation information
usage. Transp. Res. A Policy Pract. 2020, 134, 130–151. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2022, 14, 10395 15 of 17

30. Kim, W.G.; Kim, D.J. Factors affecting online hotel reservation intention between online and non-online customers. Int. J. Hosp.
Manag. 2004, 23, 381–395. [CrossRef]
31. Schaarschmidt, M.; Höber, B. Digital booking services: Comparing online with phone reservation services. J. Serv. Mark. 2017, 31,
704–719. [CrossRef]
32. Elhaj, M. Factors that contribute to consumers’ perceptions of online and traditional travel reservation systems. Anatolia 2012, 23,
118–122. [CrossRef]
33. Davis, F.D. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q. 1989, 13, 319–340.
[CrossRef]
34. Brouder, P. Reset redux: Possible evolutionary pathways towards the transformation of tourism in a COVID-19 world. Tour.
Geogr. 2020, 22, 484–490. [CrossRef]
35. Cuomo, M.T.; Tortora, D.; Foroudi, P.; Giordano, A.; Festa, G.; Metallo, G. Digital transformation and tourist experience co-design:
Big social data for planning cultural tourism. Technol. Forecast. Soc. 2021, 162, 120345. [CrossRef]
36. Seraphin, H. COVID-19: An opportunity to review existing grounded theories in event studies. J. Conv. Event Tour. 2020, 22, 3–35.
[CrossRef]
37. Law, R.; Bai, B. How do the preferences of online buyers and browsers differ on the design and content of travel websites? Int. J.
Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2008, 20, 388–400. [CrossRef]
38. Breitenbach, C.; Van Doren, D. Value-added marketing in the digital domain: Enhancing the utility of the Internet. J. Int. Consum.
Mark. 1998, 15, 558–575. [CrossRef]
39. Wang, L.; Law, R.; Guillet, B.D.; Hung, K.; Fong, D.K.C. Impact of hotel website quality on online booking intentions: ETrust as a
mediator. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2015, 47, 108–115. [CrossRef]
40. Lin, J.C.; Lu, H. Towards an understanding of the behavioral intention to use a website. Int. J. Inform. Manag. 2000, 20, 197–208.
41. Yi, Y.; Gong, T. The electronic service quality model: The moderating effect of customer self-efficacy. Psychol. Mark. 2008, 25,
587–601. [CrossRef]
42. Pham Minh, Q.; Ngoc Mai, N. Perceived risk and booking intention in the crisis of Covid-19: Comparison of tourist hotels and
love hotels. Tour. Recreat. Res. 2021, 46, 1–13. [CrossRef]
43. Wöber, K.; Gretzel, U. Tourism managers' adoption of marketing decision support systems. J. Travel Res. 2000, 39, 172–181.
[CrossRef]
44. Kaplanidou, K.; Vogt, C. A structural analysis of destination travel intentions as a function of web site features. J. Travel Res. 2006,
45, 204–216. [CrossRef]
45. Amin, M.; Ryu, K.; Cobanoglu, C.; Nizam, A. Determinants of online hotel booking intentions: Website quality, social presence,
affective commitment, and e-trust. J. Hosp. Mark. Manag. 2021, 30, 845–870. [CrossRef]
46. Agag, G.M.; El-Masry, A.A. Why do consumers trust online travel websites? Drivers and outcomes of consumer trust toward
online travel websites. J. Travel Res. 2017, 56, 347–369. [CrossRef]
47. Lew, S.; Tan, G.W.-H.; Loh, X.-M.; Hew, J.-J.; Ooi, K.-B. The disruptive mobile wallet in the hospitality industry: An extended
mobile technology acceptance model. Technol. Soc. 2020, 63, 101430. [CrossRef]
48. El-Said, O.; Aziz, H. Virtual tours a means to an end: An analysis of virtual tours' role in tourism recovery post COVID-19. J.
Travel Res. 2022, 61, 528–548. [CrossRef]
49. Jin, C.-H. Adoption of e-book among college students: The perspective of an integrated TAM. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2014, 41,
471–477. [CrossRef]
50. Pavlou, P.A. Consumer acceptance of electronic commerce: Integrating trust and risk with the technology acceptance model. Int.
J. Electron. Commer. 2003, 7, 101–134.
51. Pikkarainen, T.; Pikkarainen, K.; Karjaluoto, H.; Pahnila, S. Consumer acceptance of online banking: An extension of the
technology acceptance model. Internet Res. 2004, 14, 224–235. [CrossRef]
52. Agag, G.; El-Masry, A.A. Understanding the determinants of hotel booking intentions and moderating role of habit. Int. J. Hosp.
Manag. 2016, 54, 52–67. [CrossRef]
53. Disztinger, P.; Schlögl, S.; Aleksander, G. Technology acceptance of virtual reality for travel planning. In Information and
Communication Technologies in Tourism; Schegg, R., Stangl, B., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; pp. 255–268.
54. Cunningham, L.F.; Gerlach, J.; Harper, M.D. Perceived risk and e-banking services: An analysis from the perspective of the
consumer. J. Financ. Serv. Mark. 2005, 10, 165–178. [CrossRef]
55. Featherman, M.; Pavlou, P.A.; Zhang, Y.T. Predicting e-services adoption: A perceived risk facets perspective. Int. J. Hum. Comput.
Stud. 2003, 59, 451–474. [CrossRef]
56. Nunkoo, R.; Ramkissoon, H. Travelers' E-Purchase Intent of Tourism Products and Services. J. Hosp. Mark. Manag. 2013, 22,
505–529. [CrossRef]
57. Li, Y.; Qi, J.; Shu, H. Review of relationship among variables in TAM. Tsinghua Sci. Technol. 2008, 13, 273–278. (In Chinese)
[CrossRef]
58. Li, D.H.; Zhang, L.X. Model of influential factors for downloading and using tourism Apps based on a technology acceptance
model. Tour. Trib. 2015, 30, 26–34. (In Chinese)
59. Dowling, G.R.; Staelin, R. A model of perceived risk and intended risk-handling activity. J. Consum. Res. 1994, 21, 119–134.
[CrossRef]
Sustainability 2022, 14, 10395 16 of 17

60. Ruiz-Mafé, C.; Sanz-Blas, S.; Aldás-Manzano, J. Drivers and barriers to online airline ticket purchasing. J. Air Transp. Manag. 2009,
15, 294–298. [CrossRef]
61. Kim, L.H.; Qu, H.; Kim, D.J. A study of perceived risk and risk reduction of purchasing air-tickets online. J. Travel Tour. Mark.
2009, 26, 203–224. [CrossRef]
62. Lin, P.J.; Jones, E.; Westwood, S. Perceived risk and risk-Relievers in online travel purchase intentions. J. Hosp. Mark. Manag. 2009,
18, 782–810. [CrossRef]
63. Nazneen, S.; Hong, X.; Din, N. COVID-19 Crises and Tourist Travel Risk Perceptions. 2020. Available online: https://papers.ssrn.
com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3592321 (accessed on 25 July 2022).
64. Bae, S.Y.; Chang, P. The effect of coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) risk perception on behavioural intention towards ‘untact’
tourism in South Korea during the first wave of the pandemic (March 2020). Curr. Issues Tour. 2020, 24, 1017–1035. [CrossRef]
65. Ajzen, I. From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In Action Control; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1985;
pp. 11–39.
66. Bilgihan, A.; Barreda, A.; Okumus, F.; Nusair, K. Consumer perception of knowledge-sharing in travel-related online social
networks. Tour. Manag. 2016, 52, 287–296. [CrossRef]
67. Hsieh, C.M.; Park, S.H.; McNally, R. Application of the extended theory of planned behavior to intention to travel to Japan among
Taiwanese youth: Investigating the moderating effect of past visit experience. J. Travel Tour. Mark. 2016, 33, 717–729. [CrossRef]
68. Choe, J.Y.J.; Kim, J.J.; Hwang, J. The environmentally friendly role of edible insect restaurants in the tourism industry: Applying
an extended theory of planned behavior. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2020, 32, 3581–3600. [CrossRef]
69. Venkatesh, V.; Davis, F.D. A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Manag. Sci.
2000, 46, 186–204. [CrossRef]
70. Bhatiasevi, V.; Yoopetch, C. The determinants of intention to use electronic booking among young users in Thailand. J. Hosp. Tour.
Manag. 2015, 23, 1–11. [CrossRef]
71. Wang, R.; Liu, G.; Zhou, J.; Wang, J. Identifying the critical stakeholders for the sustainable development of architectural heritage
of tourism: From the perspective of China. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1671. [CrossRef]
72. Wright, C. Local government fighting Covid-19. Round Table 2020, 109, 338–339. [CrossRef]
73. Salem, I.E.; Elbaz, A.M.; Elkhwesky, Z.; Ghazi, K.M. The COVID-19 pandemic: The mitigating role of government and hotel
support of hotel employees in Egypt. Tour. Manag. 2021, 85, 104305. [CrossRef]
74. Maphanga, P.M.; Henama, U.S. The tourism impact of Ebola in Africa: Lessons on crisis management. Afr. J. Hosp. Tour. Leis.
2019, 8, 1–13.
75. Jamal, T.; Budke, C. Tourism in a world with pandemics: Local-global responsibility and action. J. Tour. Futures 2020, 6, 181–188.
[CrossRef]
76. Ritchie, B.W.; Jiang, Y. A review of research on tourism risk, crisis and disaster management: Launching the annals of tourism
research curated collection on tourism risk, crisis and disaster management. Ann. Tour. Res. 2019, 79, 102812. [CrossRef]
77. Schweinsberg, S.; Darcy, S.; Cheng, M. The agenda setting power of news media in framing the future role of tourism in protected
areas. Tour. Manag. 2017, 62, 241–252. [CrossRef]
78. Davis, F.D.; Bagozzi, R.P.; Warshaw, P.R. User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models.
Manag. Sci. 1989, 35, 982–1003. [CrossRef]
79. Yen, D.C.; Wu, C.S.; Cheng, F.F. Determinants of users’ intention to adopt wireless technology: An empirical study by integrating
TTF with TAM. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2010, 26, 906–915. [CrossRef]
80. Jacoby, J.; Kaplan, L.B. The components of perceived risk. In SV-Proceedings of the 3rd Annual Conference of the Association for
Consumer Research; Venkatesan, M., Ed.; Association for Consumer Research: Chicago, IL, USA, 1972; pp. 382–393.
81. Peter, J.P.; Tarpey, L.X., Sr. A Comparative analysis of three consumer decision strategies. J. Consum. Res. 1975, 2, 29–37. [CrossRef]
82. Wang, C.; Zhang, J.H.; Yu, P.; Hu, H. The theory of planned behavior as a model for understanding tourists’ responsible
environmental behaviors: The moderating role of environmental interpretations. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 194, 425–434. [CrossRef]
83. Verma, V.K.; Chandra, B. An application of the theory of planned behavior to predict young Indian consumers’ green hotel visit
intention. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 172, 1152–1162. [CrossRef]
84. Wang, Z.; Shou, M. Research on the influence mechanism of consumers’ environmental knowledge on green consumption
intentions: Analysis of mediating effect based on perceived usefulness. Zhejiang Trib. 2022, 52, 123–132. (In Chinese)
85. Mueller, R.O. Structural equation modeling: Back to basics. Struct. Equ. Modeling Multidiscip. J. 1997, 4, 353–369. [CrossRef]
86. Armstrong, J.S.; Overton, T.S. Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys. J. Mark. Res. 1977, 14, 396–402. [CrossRef]
87. Urbach, N.; Ahlemann, F. Structural equation modeling in information systems research using partial least squares. J. Inf. Technol.
Theory Appl. (JITTA) 2010, 11, 2.
88. Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Mark. Res.
1981, 18, 39–50. [CrossRef]
89. Henseler, J.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation
modeling. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2015, 43, 115–135. [CrossRef]
90. Gold, A.H.; Malhotra, A.; Segars, A.H. Knowledge management: An organizational capabilities perspective. J. Manag. Inform.
Syst. 2001, 18, 185–214. [CrossRef]
91. Hou, J.; Wen, Z.; Cheng, Z. Structural Equation Model and Its Application; Education Science Press: Beijing, China, 2004.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 10395 17 of 17

92. Ajzen, I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Dec. 1991, 50, 179–211. [CrossRef]
93. Mathieson, K. Predicting user intentions: Comparing the technology acceptance model with the theory of planned behavior.
Inform. Syst. Res. 1991, 2, 173–191. [CrossRef]
94. Zhao, Y.; Cui, X.; Guo, Y. Residents’ Engagement Behavior in Destination Branding. Sustainability 2022, 14, 5852. [CrossRef]
95. Guo, Y.; Hou, X. The effects of job crafting on tour leaders' work engagement: The mediating role of person-job fit and
meaningfulness of work. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2022, 34, 1649–1667. [CrossRef]
96. Wang, T.Y.; Park, J. Destination Information Search in Social Media and Travel Intention of Generation Z University Students.
J. China Tour. Res. 2022, 18, 1–19. [CrossRef]
97. Garcı’a-Milon, A.; Olarte-Pascual, C.; Juaneda-Ayensa, E. Assessing the moderating effect of COVID-19 on intention to use
smartphones on the tourist shopping journey. Tour. Manag. 2021, 87, 104361. [CrossRef]
98. Florido-Benitez, L. The impact of tourism promotion in tourist destinations: A bibliometric study. Int. J. Tour. Cities 2022.
ahead-of-print. [CrossRef]