Tourism Recreation Research

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rtrr20

Understanding international and domestic travel

intention of Indian travellers during COVID-19
using a Bayesian approach

Sitanshu Sekhar Das & Aviral Kumar Tiwari

To cite this article: Sitanshu Sekhar Das & Aviral Kumar Tiwari (2020): Understanding
international and domestic travel intention of Indian travellers during COVID-19 using a Bayesian
approach, Tourism Recreation Research, DOI: 10.1080/02508281.2020.1830341

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/02508281.2020.1830341

Published online: 22 Oct 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 4

View related articles

View Crossmark data

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

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rtrr20
TOURISM RECREATION RESEARCH
https://doi.org/10.1080/02508281.2020.1830341

Understanding international and domestic travel intention of Indian travellers

during COVID-19 using a Bayesian approach
Sitanshu Sekhar Das and Aviral Kumar Tiwari
Rajagiri Business School, Rajagiri Valley, Kakkanad, Kochi, India

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

This study investigated travel intentions of 484 international and 566 domestic travellers during COVID- Received 26 July 2020
19 pandemic using Bayesian structural equation modelling and the extended model of goal-directed Accepted 20 September
behaviour. The variation in the perceived severity of COVID-19 and willingness to adopt personal 2020
non-pharmaceutical interventions (PNPIs) across different demographic and socioeconomic
KEYWORDS
characteristics of travellers was also examined. It was revealed that attitude, subjective norm, COVID-19; model of goal-
perceived behavioural control and positive anticipated emotion positively and negative anticipated directed behaviour; personal
emotion negatively influenced travellers’ intention through their desire to travel during COVID-19. non-pharmaceutical
The perceived severity of COVID-19 indirectly influenced travel intention through willingness to interventions; travel
adopt PNPIs. Female and older travellers perceived COVID-19 as more severe and showed more intention; Bayesian SEM
willingness to adopt PNPIs. Implications and directions for future research are discussed.

Introduction
Travel and tourism industry is hardest hit by sudden dis-
asters and crisis (Valencia & Crouch, 2008). Coronavirus
Disease 2019 (COVID-19) is one such crisis which has
caused economic hardships globally and brought an
exceptionally challenging year for travel and tourism
industry (UNWTO, 2020a). Prolonged international
travel bans and restricted domestic mobility have been
the most widely used pandemic mitigation measures.
Citizens have also been advised to avoid travel to the
extent possible. These measures have badly affected
the global tourism sector (UNWTO, 2020a; Wen et al.,
2020; Yeh, 2020). However, in spite of being the
hardest hit around the globe (Gössling et al., 2020), the
tourism and travel industry is expected to lead economic
revival post-COVID-19 (Pololikashvili, 2020; Singh &
Neog, 2020). In India, the number of travellers is
expected to rise once the lockdowns are eased as dom-
estic tourism may be boosted to revive the economy
(Mitra, 2020). A large and growing population with a
strong economy has led to the growth of the Indian out-
bound as well as domestic travel market. In 2018, there
were 26.3 million international departures from India,
whereas there were 1.85 billion domestic tourists (Minis-
try of Tourism, 2019). Therefore, as the tourism and
travel industry prepares for revival once the travel
restrictions are lifted, it is imperative to understand the
travel intentions of potential Indian domestic and inter-
national travellers during COVID-19.
The literature reveals that international and domestic
travellers perceive risk associated with travel differently
and have different travel intention and behaviour
(Lepp & Gibson, 2003; Reisinger & Mavondo, 2005).
Travel risk perception of domestic and international tra-
vellers during a health crisis depends on the fear of con-
traction (Neuburger & Egger, 2020) and is amplified by
media coverage and public opinions of the severity of
the disease (Cahyanto et al., 2016). Travellers commit
the ‘home-is-safer-than-abroad’ bias, which states that
travellers consider travelling in their home country
safer compared to travelling abroad (Wolff et al., 2019).
Therefore, understanding the intention of Indians to
travel within home country and abroad post-lockdown
when fear of contagion still prevails would assist govern-
ment agencies, transport systems and tourism marketers
all over the world in recovering from the existing crisis
and managing similar future crises more proactively.
Very recently, theory of planned behaviour (TPB) has
been used for understanding impacts of perceptions
during COVID-19 on post-COVID-19 travel behaviours
(Li et al., 2020a). However, TPB is criticized for not consid-
ering motivational, affective (Conner & Armitage, 1998)
and habitual factors (past behaviour) which affects
intention and behaviour (Bamberg et al., 2003). The
model of goal-directed behaviour (MGB) addresses the
limitations of TPB by integrating desire, negative antici-
pated emotions (NAE) and positive anticipated emotions

CONTACT Aviral Kumar Tiwari aviral.eco@gmail.com, Rajagiri Business School, Rajagiri Valley, Kakkanad, Kochi, Kerala 682039, India
© 2020 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 S. S. DAS AND A. K. TIWARI

(PAE) and past behaviours in addition to the original Travel and personal non-pharmaceutical
factors of the TPB (Perugini & Bagozzi, 2001). Therefore, interventions during COVID-19
to examine potential travellers’ visit intention, authors
Air travel is thought to be the principal mode of human
used the MGB. Gaining from the insights of Lee et al.’s
pathogen transfer between continents (Browne et al.,
(2012), authors extended the MGB by adding the per-
2016) and the primary medium of globalization of epi-
ceived severity of COVID-19 and willingness to adopt
demics in the twenty-first century (WHO, 2018). Though
personal non-pharmaceutical intervention (PNPI) to
the origin of COVID-19 and mode of transmission to
analyse the travellers’ intention.
humans is still being debated, the rapid human-to-human
The perceived risk (Reisinger & Mavondo, 2005) and
transmission has been widely established. The confirmed
perceived severity (Li et al., 2020a) of a disease are sig-
cases of COVID-19 were first reported on 31 December
nificant factors which affect the choice of travel desti-
2019 in Wuhan, China. The disease reached Thailand on
nations, cancelling or postponing travel plans, and
13 January 2020 and USA on 20 January 2020 when two
shortening the duration of stay. The primary concern
persons flew from Wuhan to Thailand and USA unknow-
of travellers is to ensure their own safety during
ingly carrying the pathogen. Air transportation is the
travel or at the destination. Travellers who perceive
prime mover of people internationally, which carries more
COVID-19 as more severe and cannot avoid travel
than 4 billion passengers on more than 55,000 routes
may use precautionary or protective behaviours
linking 20,000 city pairs across the globe (International Air
(Taglioni et al., 2013). PNPIs include enhancing aware-
Transport Association, 2019). In India, while nearly 300
ness of the pandemic; augmenting personal hygiene
million people travel by air every year (Airport Authority
habits when travelling such as using masks, hand
of India, 2019), Indian railways is the second largest mover
hygiene, practicing cough etiquette; adopting social
of people with more than 23 million passengers everyday
distancing and avoiding contact touch (Benkouiten
(Indian Railways, 2019). India witnessed a surge in COVID-
et al., 2014). PNPIs are widely being viewed as
19 cases after the lockdown rules were eased and inter-
effective deterrents against COVID-19 contagion in
state migration was allowed (Dey, 2020).
the absence of pharmaceutical remedies (Kantor &
Several antiviral drugs such as combination of hydroxy-
Kantor, 2020). PNPIs could minimize their risk of
chloroquine and azithromycin; and remdesivir (Schlagen-
COVID-19 infection when travelling to COVID-19 hit
hauf et al., 2020) are useful for treating COVID-19
countries or places (Lee et al., 2012).
patients. However, only vaccines can stop this fast-
It is plausible to believe that both international and
moving pathogen. Vaccines for COVID-19 are under
domestic travellers may adopt PNPIs for two reasons.
development and only few labs have conducted human
First, there is no COVID-19 vaccine yet and second,
trial. Out of 78 confirmed vaccine candidates reported
COVID-19 transmission can be sporadic over the next 5
until 8 April 2020, 73 are in exploratory or preclinical
years until 2022 (Kissler et al., 2020). The differing
stages (Li et al., 2020b). Even though COVID-19 vaccine
context of COVID-19 and its perception as more severe
R&D is being carried out at a record scale and speed glob-
than other seasonal influenza (Cowling et al., 2020)
ally, it might be months before a breakthrough (Webmed,
justified the inclusion of perceived severity and willing-
2020). Even if vaccines become available, the unprece-
ness to adopt PNPI for theory broadening (Perugini &
dented scale of the COVID-19 outbreak might put insur-
Bagozzi, 2001). This would be a first study investigating
mountable demand on the production and supply of
how travellers from different demographic and socioe-
the vaccines (Oshitani, 2006). The pharmaceutical inter-
conomic background perceive the severity of COVID-
ventions also have other limitations. First, not all
19 and show willingness to adopt PNPIs during travel.
countries or individuals can afford enough drugs and vac-
This can assist government agencies and policymakers
cines. Second, over-reliance only on a pharmaceutical sol-
to develop and implement PNPIs.
ution is also discouraged (Jefferson et al., 2006) because it
Furthermore, we extend the existing literature by
may impede the implementation of accessible and
using a Bayesian approach and also compare results
affordable interventions effective for public health.
with the traditional maximum likelihood method. The
PNPIs have been proved to be effective in slowing
use of a Bayesian approach is novel in the study
down the COVID-19 outbreak (Sun et al., 2020), especially
context and it is a robust method as it takes into
among travellers (Benkouiten et al., 2019).
account the nonlinearity or non-randomness of the
Non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) refers to a
data. The next section of the paper presents a brief back-
range of protective measures other than vaccines or medi-
ground of travel during pandemic and the PNPIs, fol-
cines, which is available to all, can delay an outbreak and
lowed by a theoretical context and development of
reduce the total number of infections (WHO, 2019)
hypotheses, methodology, findings, and the conclusion.

during a pandemic. NPIs can be administrative and per-
sonal (Nicoll, 2006; WHO, 2019). Administrative NPIs
include case isolation, quarantine, closure of educational
institutions, shopping complexes and places of worships,
border closure and travel restrictions (CDC, 2020b). PNPIs
include mask-wearing, hand hygiene, respiratory
hygiene, self-isolation and social distancing (Nicoll, 2006;
WHO, 2019). In a prolonged and evolving pandemic,
such as COVID-19, Governments cannot continue with
administrative NPIs for too long due to the adverse socio-
economic impact. Furthermore, the administrative
measures facilitating safe travel are also not always feas-
ible. Mandatory screening and diagnostic procedures for
travellers at airports, railway stations and bus stations
may be cumbersome, unreliable and unavailable at some
places. This study focuses on PNPIs.
In COVID-19 outbreak, hand hygiene is especially
important, because the COVID-19 can live up to 9 days
on various inanimate surfaces (Kampf et al., 2020) and
can be transmitted (Thomas et al., 2014). Washing
hands with soaps and alcohol-based sanitizers inactivate
virus on human hands (WHO, 2020). Respiratory etiquette
is a simple hygiene practice designed to prevent the
transmission of respiratory infections from one person
to another while coughing or sneezing (WHO, 2019).
The etiquettes include the use of tissue to cover mouth
and nose when coughing and sneezing publicly and
proper disposal of used tissues (Xiao et al., 2020) and in
the absence of a tissue coughing or sneezing into
elbow (CDC, 2020a). Face-masks are facial covers (both
washable and surgical) used for preventing person-to-
person transmission of infections. Though scientific evi-
dence about the effectiveness of these measures is still
not unanimous, these are easily accessible, easy to
adopt and seem effective on the face of it.
Essential business, humanitarian missions, supply
chain operations or unavoidable personal reasons will
lead to continued international as well as domestic
movement of people. Managing such travel in the face
of imminent health risk and apprehension due to
inadequate antiviral drugs and absence of vaccines
(Wu et al., 2010), and unfeasibility of administrative
NPIs has made COVID-19 an evolving challenge. There-
fore, during a pandemic, potential travellers’ intention
to travel internationally or within the country, their per-
ception of COVID-19 severity and willingness to adopt of
PNPIs during travel need further investigation.
Theoretical background and hypothesis
development
The MGB is a socio-psychological theory for understand-
ing specific human behaviour beyond TPB (Perugini &
TOURISM RECREATION RESEARCH 3
Bagozzi, 2001). The MGB extends TPB by adding desire
(a motivational process forming behavioural intention),
PAE (promoting a positive situation predicting desire),
NAE (avoiding a negative situation predicting desire)
and past behaviours. Past behaviours are habitual
process influencing both desire, intention and behav-
iour. The MGB can further be extended to better under-
stand international and domestic traveller’ intention to
travel during the COVID-19 outbreak by adding contex-
tual variables (Taylor, 2007) like perceived severity of
COVID-19 and the willingness to adopt PNPIs.
Attitude, subjective norm, perceived behavioural
control and desire
According to TPB, the intention to perform a behaviour is
strengthened by the attitude towards the behaviour
(Ajzen, 1991). However, researchers extended this argu-
ment and asserted that attitude indirectly influence behav-
ioural intention via desire (Meng & Choi, 2016). According
to the MGB literature, only strong positive attitude cannot
trigger intention without the strong motivation for the
behaviour (Taylor et al., 2009). Desire as a key motivating
force to carry out an action improves the predictive validity
of the MGB (Meng & Choi, 2016). Hence,
H1: Attitude has positive association with desire for
travel.
Individuals comply with or consider the opinion of sig-
nificant referents (e.g. friends, family and colleagues)
while making decisions or performing behaviours
(Meng & Choi, 2016). Individuals also perceive social
pressure and comply with or consider the opinion of sig-
nificant referents (e.g. friends, family and colleagues)
while making decisions or performing behaviours
(Ajzen, 1991; Meng & Choi, 2016). Like attitude, subjec-
tive norm also indirectly influences behavioural inten-
tion via desire (Perugini & Bagozzi, 2001). Hence,
H2: Subjective norm has positive association with desire
for travel.
As a non-volitional dimension of MGB, perceived behav-
ioural control (PBC) denotes an individual’s perceived
capability to perform a behaviour and is a significant
predictor of desire. The intention to carry out a behav-
iour is determined by whether the person possess ade-
quate resources or has opportunities to do so (Ajzen,
1991). However, it is established that PBC might gener-
ate behavioural intention even with completely neutral
attitudes and subjective norms (Lokhorst & Staats,
2006). As a result, PBC is assumed to strengthen the indi-
vidual’s desire as well as behavioural intention (Perugini
& Bagozzi, 2001). For example, if an individual has the
4 S. S. DAS AND A. K. TIWARI
necessary resources (e.g. time, opportunity, money to
travel as well as afford PNPIs) to travel during COVID-
19, then s/he is more likely to be desirous or motivated
to travel, form an intention to travel and will actually
travel. However, the relationship between PBC and
actual travel is not hypothesized in this study as the ulti-
mate variable of the current study is a travel intention,
not an actual travel. As the intention to perform a behav-
iour is primarily motivated by the desire to perform the
behaviour (Perugini & Bagozzi, 2001), it was hypoth-
esized that,
H3: PBC has positive association with desire for travel.
H4: PBC has positive association with travel intention.
PAE, NAE and desire
Anticipated emotional reaction to performance or non-
performance of behaviours is a determinant of desire
and intention (Conner & Armitage, 1998; Perugini &
Bagozzi, 2001; Song et al., 2012; 2014). PAE is triggered
by the expectation of success or benefits by performing
a specific behaviour, while NAE emanates from the
expectation of failure or loss by not performing a behav-
iour (Bagozzi et al., 1998). According to Leone et al.
(2004), anticipated emotions show effects on behav-
ioural desire because the emotional constructs represent
the hedonic motive of promoting a positive state of
affairs and avoiding a negative state of affairs. Hence,
these two anticipated emotions are considered to be
the predictors of desire and intention (Kim et al., 2012;
Meng & Choi, 2016). Therefore, based on the literature
review, the two anticipated emotions are hypothesized
to influence the individuals’ desire to travel during
COVID-19. Hence,
H5a: PAE has positive association with desire for travel.
H5b: NAE has negative association with desire for travel.
Frequency of past travel, desire and travel
intention
Past behaviour as a proxy of habit significantly predicts
future behaviours (Leone et al., 2004; Meng & Choi,
2016; Song et al., 2012; 2017). Perceived risks associated
with a future travel are reduced for persons who have
past travel behaviours (Sönmez & Graefe, 1998). Past
behaviour strengthens the desire and intention to carry
out a specific behaviour (Perugini & Bagozzi, 2001).
According to the MGB, the frequency of past behaviour
significantly affects desire, intention and behaviour
(Bagozzi & Dholakia, 2006; Perugini & Bagozzi, 2004). Fre-
quency refers to the performance of behaviour over a
relatively long period of time, usually 1 year (Leone
et al., 2004; Song et al., 2014). COVID-19 though unprece-
dented is not a new situation altogether. It is more likely
for those who travelled overseas during H1N1 pandemic
in 2009 or during the 2014–2016 Ebola outbreak and tra-
velled within India during Nipah virus outbreak in 2018 to
have more desire and intention to travel during COVID-
19. Therefore, it was hypothesized that:
H6: Past travel behaviour has positive association with
desire for travel.
H7: Past travel behaviour has positive association with
intention for travel.
Desire, intention, perceived severity of COVID-19
and PNPI
TPB has been criticized for lacking a motivational link in
the attitude–intention relationship (Bagozzi, 1992;
Conner & Armitage, 1998). That motivational link is the
subjective experience of desire to perform a behaviour.
The evaluative appraisal of a behaviour as appealing or
pleasant or nice (i.e. having a positive attitude) does not
engender sufficient motivation to perform it (Bagozzi,
1992; Song et al., 2012). According to the MGB, desire
acts as a proximal predictor while attitude, subjective
norm, PBC, PAE and NAE act as distal predictors of inten-
tion. Desire mediates the relationships between the distal
predictors and behavioural intention (Bagozzi, 1992; Per-
ugini & Bagozzi, 2001; Song et al., 2017). Hence,
H8: Desire has positive association with travel intention.
H9: (a) Attitude, (b) subjective norm, (c) PAE, (d) NAE, and
(e) frequency of past travel behaviour indirectly
influence travel intention through desire.
People’s perceptions of objects, behaviours and events
shape their attitudes, interests and opinions (Oliver,
1997). Perception of risk and safety influences
decision-making (Reisinger & Mavondo, 2005; Rittichai-
nuwat & Chakraborty, 2009). Intention to travel
decreases with the increased perception of disease
severity or health risk (Lee et al., 2012; Sridhar et al.,
2016; Yang et al., 2020). Travellers who perceive risk
can either pursue, cancel or alter their travel plans, or
alter travel destination, or acquire additional information
to pursue their travel plans (Reisinger & Mavondo, 2005).
Risk perceptions can negatively influence travel inten-
tion, but, not when travellers adopt risk-reduction strat-
egies (Deng & Ritchie, 2018). As the end of COVID-19 is
not in sight, people may desire and intend to travel
once the lockdowns are relaxed. As pharmaceutical
remedy such as COVID-19 vaccine is not available, travel-
lers will adopt some risk-reduction practices in the form of

PNPIs during travel to reduce their risk perceptions associ-
ated with travel (Benkouiten et al., 2014; Lee et al., 2012).
In China, PNPIs have been effective in protecting people
from COVID-19 infections after lifting travel restrictions
(Lai et al., 2020). Hence, it was postulated that (Figure 1):
H10: Perceived severity of COVID-19 has negative associ-
ation with desire to travel.
H11: Perceived severity of COVID-19 has positive associ-
ation with willingness to adopt PNPIs.
H12: Perceived severity of COVID-19 has negative associ-
ation with travel intention.
H13: Willingness to adopt PNPIs has positive association
with travel intention.
H14: Perceived severity of COVID-19 indirectly associate
with travel intention through willingness to adopt PNPIs.
Methods
Measures
Apart from the frequency of past travel, the perceived
severity of COVID-19, and willingness to adopt PNPIs,
all other constructs used in this study were measured
with items adapted from Lee et al. (2012). The frequency
of past travel was captured with a single item question
adapted from Lee et al. (2012), ‘How many times have
you travelled abroad (to other states within the
country) during the H1N1 pandemic 2009 or the 2014–
2016 Ebola outbreak (Nipah virus outbreak in 2018)?’
The perceived severity of COVID-19 was measured with
five items (how severe the rate of infection, morbidity,
mortality, the negative impact on society and
Figure 1. Conceptual model
TOURISM RECREATION RESEARCH 5
economy) adapted from Li et al. (2020b) measured on
a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (not severe at all) to
(very severe). A high score indicated that participants
perceived COVID-19 as more severe. The willingness to
adopt PNPIs for COVID-19 was operationalized with
seven items adapted from Lee et al. (2012).
Attitude, subjective norm, PBC and willingness to
adopt PNPI were rated on a 7-point Likert scale ranging
from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Positive
and negative emotions were measured using a 7-point
scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 7 (very much). Respon-
dents were also asked to report their gender, age, edu-
cation level, marital status, occupation, annual
household income and purpose of travel. Items with stan-
dardized factor loadings <0.70 were dropped from the
analysis (Kline, 2009). All the constructs had acceptable
composite reliability and convergent validity.
Sampling and data collection procedure
Target population were Indians with an intention to
travel amid COVID-19 once the travel restrictions are
lifted. An unrestricted, self-selected survey was con-
ducted using Google Form, an online survey tool. This
is a convenience sampling method (as a non-probability
approach). Online survey facilitates efficient access to
reach wider populations of interest (Han & Hyun, 2017)
which are difficult to reach either because they are
hard to locate, identify or they exist in small numbers
(Fricker, 2008). Hence, the country-wide lockdown also
justified online data collection.
The survey link was shared on many professional social
networking sites of the authors inviting potential travel-
lers across India during the second and third week of
6 S. S. DAS AND A. K. TIWARI

May 2020 to participate in the survey. This specific time- Table 1. Demographic characteristics of the international and
frame for data collection was intentional because domestic travellers.
around this time, there were assumptions regarding relax- International Domestic
travellers travellers
ation of road, rail and air travel restrictions. The online Characteristics N (%) N (%)
survey form contained a conditional question, ‘Did you Gender
have any plan to visit abroad in the summer 2020?’ Male 248 (51.2) 322 (56.9)
Female 236 (48.8) 244 (43.1)
Based on the answer to this question, travellers were Age
classified as international (those who answered Yes) and 20–29 80 (16.5) 91 (16.1)
30–39 134 (27.7) 163 (28.8)
domestic (those who answered No) and were provided 40–49 128 (26.4) 148 (26.1)
with different forms with a similar set of questions (see 50–59 101 (20.9) 107 (18.9)
Appendix 1 and Appendix 2). A total of 484 travellers >60 41 (8.5) 57 (10.1)
Education level
responded to the international form and were grouped High school 0(0) 17 (3.0)
as international tourist segment. Contrarily 566 Intermediate 15 (3.1) 109 (19.3)
Graduate 164 (33.9) 228 (40.3)
responded to the domestic form and were grouped as Postgraduate 158 (32.6) 124 (21.9)
domestic tourist segment. Creating two separate travel- Postgraduate and more 147 (30.4) 88 (15.5)
Marital status
lers segment ensured the homogeneity of the sample Single 121 (25.0) 103 (18.2)
even though non-probability method was used to Married 287 (59.3) 436 (77.0)
Divorced 49 (10.1) 12 (2.1)
collect data (Jager et al., 2017). The sociodemographic Separated 13 (2.7) 10 (1.8)
characteristics of the homogeneous samples such as Widowed 14 (2.9) 5 (0.9)
gender, age, education, income etc. can also differ Occupation level
Employed 320 (66.1) 260 (45.9)
(Jager et al., 2017). Self-employed 60 (12.4) 175 (30.9)
Students 85 (17.6) 88 (15.5)
Retired 9 (1.9) 9 (1.6)
Unemployed 0 (0) 0 (0)
Sample profile Housewife 10 (2.1) 34 (6)
Annual household incomea
Table 1 shows demographic and socioeconomic charac- <500,000 INR 12 (2.5) 146 (25.8)
500,000 INR–1,499,999 INR 42 (8.7) 180 (31.8)
teristics of the travellers. Both among the international 1,500,000 INR–2,499,999 117 (24.2) 115 (20.3)
and domestic travellers, males were more than females INR
in the sample. The majority of respondents were aged 2,500,000 INR–3,499,999 166 (34.3) 87 (15.4)
INR
between 30 and 39 years. Most of the respondents in >3,500,000 INR 147 (30.3) 38 (6.7)
both the samples were at least graduates, married and Purpose
Business 100 (20.7) 36 (6.4)
employed. Among the international travellers, a majority Leisure 98 (20.2) 88 (15.5)
had an annual household income between 1,500,000 Visiting family and friends 81 (16.7) 128 (22.6)
Convention/conference 103 (21.3) 97 (17.1)
INR and 2,499,999 INR. Business, convention/conference Employment 38 (7.9) 88 (15.5)
and leisure were the major purposes among the inter- Education 40 (8.3) 109 (19.3)
Other 24 (5.0) 20 (3.5)
national travellers, whereas visiting family and friends, a
US$1 is around INR 76.00 in 2020.
convention/conference and education were the major
purposes among the domestic travellers.

Findings
Measurement model
Mardia’s standardized coefficients were 69.02 in inter-
national travellers sample and 13.13 in domestic travel-
lers sample, suggesting multivariate non-normality
(Byrne, 2010). Given the evidence of non-normality of
data and small sample size, Bayesian structural equation
modelling (BSEM) was used. BSEM makes use of the
Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) estimate and hence
takes into account the asymmetrical (non-normal) distri-
bution of the indirect effect and provides results having
probabilistic interpretations (Miočević et al., 2018).
Maximum likelihood SEM was also used to compare
with that of the BSEM. Mplus 6 was used for the analysis
(Muthén & Asparouhov, 2012). When specifying prior
distributions, Mplus uses the variance parameterization
(σ 2) instead of precision parameterization (1/σ 2; pre-
cision is the inverse of the variance) used by SAS (Statisti-
cal Analysis System), JAGS(Just Another Gibbs Sampler),
and WinBUGS (Windows Bayesian inference Using Gibbs
Sampling) (Miočević et al., 2018). Diffuse (non-informa-
tive) normal prior distributions were used for the
BSEM. The use of diffuse prior is specifically suitable for
this study in the context of a never seen before situation
created by COVID-19 which has immensely affected the
behaviour of the travellers. Therefore, prior distributions
based on previous studies, meta-analyses or expert
opinions may not be applicable for this study (Smid
 TOURISM RECREATION RESEARCH 7
et al., 2020). Bayesian approach with diffuse prior distri-
0.91
0.96
0.94
0.96
0.95
0.95

AT, attitude; SN, subjective norm; PBC, perceived behavioural control; PAE, positive anticipated emotion; NAE, negative anticipated emotion; PSC, perceived severity of COVID-19; PNPI, willingness to adopt PNPIs; FPT,
0.94

0.86
0.88
CRc

butions have average power (Miočević et al., 2017) and

also allow for probabilistic interpretation of results (Mio-
čević et al., 2018). In line with the methodological litera-
AVEb
0.62
0.85
0.77
0.85
0.82
0.81
0.70

0.61
0.67
–

ture, diffuse normal priors for regression coefficients

with the mean equal to 0 and the variance equal to
103 (Miočević et al., 2017, 2018) were used.
0.79
0.92
0.88
0.92
0.91
0.90
0.84

0.78
0.82
DVa

The same measurement model was estimated separ-

ately for international and domestic traveller samples.
Each construct had acceptable convergent validity
0.46***
0.45***
0.77***
0.72***
−0.60***
0.22***
0.61***
0.23***
0.98***

0.94
0.87
0.96

(average variance extracted), composite reliability and

TI

discriminant validity. Only desire and travel intention

in both the sample had no discriminant validity.
Reliability and validity for the frequency of past visit
0.47***
0.44***
0.78***
0.73***
−0.59***
0.21***
0.59***
0.25***

0.98***

were not computed as it was measured by a single

0.88
0.78
0.93
DZ

item (Table 2).

Table 2. Correlation matrix for measures (lower diagonal for international travellers and upper diagonal for domestic travellers).

−0.11***
−0.42***
−0.67***
−0.61***
0.50***
−0.18***

Test of hypotheses
0.19**
FPT

−0.09
−0.07
–
–
–
–

First, Bayesian SEM using MPlus was used. The inter-

action of the independent and mediator (XM) variable
were included in the model as separate variables to
0.21****
0.37***
0.74***
0.73***
−0.48***
0.36***

0.26***
get an unbiased estimate of the indirect effect (Merrill 0.31***
PNPI

0.80
0.64
0.93
−0.05
et al., 1994). Bayesian SEM provides causal indirect
effects and can handle the XM interaction and other –
nonlinear effects (Miočević et al., 2018). As hypothesized,
0.15***
0.25***
0.27***

0.20***

0.66***
0.67***
attitude, subjective norm, PBC and PAE positively
PSC
0.03

0.91
0.84
0.96
−0.04

−0.01
influenced desire to travel internationally as well travel

–
within India (Table 3). Hence, hypotheses H1, H2, H3
and H5a were supported. Supporting hypotheses H5b,
NAE was negatively associated with the desire to travel

−0.31***
−0.32***
−0.48***
−0.35***

−0.41***
−0.18***

−0.57***
−0.58***
NAE

0.83
0.69
0.78
0.04
both internationally and domestically. The frequency

–
of past visit was also positively associated with the
desire to travel, supporting H6. PBC was the most
potent predictor of desire in both the sample followed

0.39***
0.29***
0.73***

−0.33***
0.60***
0.16***

0.72***
0.70***
PAE

0.82
0.67
0.81
−0.04
by PAE. The perceived severity of COVID-19 had a posi-

–
tive association with PNPI in both the samples. Hence,

frequency of past travel behaviour; DZ, desire; TI, travel intention.

Hypothesis H11 was supported. The perceived severity
of COVID-19 had a positive association with travel inten-

0.39***
0.35***

0.72***
−0.46***
0.87***
0.16***

0.77***
0.76***
tion in international sample but had no association in

PBC

0.88
0.77
0.94
−0.04
–
domestic sample. Therefore, H12 was only supported
in international sample. Supporting hypotheses H8 and
H13, desire and willingness to adopt PNPIs were posi-

0.13***

0.32***
0.26***

0.33***
−28***

0.40***
0.40***
tively associated with travel intention. PBC had a nega-

SN

0.88
0.78
0.93
0.05
0.00
–
tive association with travel intention in international
sample and had no association in domestic sample.

Average variance extracted.

Hence, H4 was refuted.

0.39***
0.39***
−0.33***
0.34***
0.18***

0.50***
0.49***
0.12*
The perceived severity of COVID-19 had a positive

0.80
0.64
0.91
−0.02
AT

Composite reliability.
Discriminant validity.
**p < .01, ***p < .001.
–
association with travel intention in international
sample and no association with travel intention in dom-
estic sample. Hence, H12 was refuted. The frequency of

Variables
past travel behaviour did not significantly associate

AVEb
PNPI
NAE
PBC
PAE

PSC

DVa
FPT

CRc
DZ
SN
AT
with the intention to travel internationally as well as

TI

b
a

c
8 S. S. DAS AND A. K. TIWARI

Table 3. Direct and indirect effects using BSEM suggest reasonable model fits (Muthén & Asparouhov,
International Domestic 2012). In general, we did not find any statistical differ-
Paths travellers Decision travellers Decision
ences between domestic and international travellers
AT→DZ 0.16*** H1 supported 0.12*** H1 supported
SN→DZ 0.13*** H2 supported 0.14*** H2 supported
with reference to the hypothesized relationships.
PBC→DZ 0.37*** H3 supported 0.34*** H3 supported
PBC→TI −0.22*** H4 refuted −0.05 H4 refuted
PAE→DZ 0.29*** H5a supported 0.30*** H5a supported Direct and indirect effects using maximum
NAE→DZ −0.21*** H5b −0.22*** H5b
supported supported likelihood method
PSC→DZ −0.01 H10 refuted 0.01 H10 refuted
PSC→PNPI 0.19*** H11 supported 0.14*** H11 supported To compare and contrast the results obtained from
PSC→TI 0.06* H12 refuted 0.03 H12 refuted BSEM, we used SEM using maximum likelihood
PNPI→TI 0.10*** H13 supported 0.08*** H13 supported
FPT→DZ 0.09*** H6 supported 0.08*** H6 supported approach (Table 5). Since data are non-normal,
FPT→TI 0.04 H7 refuted −0.04 H7 refuted methods based on Gaussian assumption may provide
DZ→TI 0.63*** H8 supported 0.74*** H8 supported
ATxDZ→TI 0.00 0.24***
misleading results, to account for evident non-normal-
SNxDZ→TI 0.20*** 0.01 ity in the data, the MLM function available in MPlus
PBCxDZ→TI 0.13*** 0.12 was utilized. The MLM is asymptotically equivalent to
PAExDZ→TI 0.35*** 0.06
NAExDZ→TI 0.01 −0.03 the Satorra–Bentler chi-square test (S–B χ2) appropriate
PSCxDZ→TI −0.02 0.00 for non-normal data (Muthén & Muthén, 2010). Both
FPTxDZ→TI −0.05 0.03
PCxPNPI→TI 0.07* −0.03 the models indicated an adequate fit. The Satorra–
*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001. Bentler chi-square difference tests for international
sample (ΔS–B χ 2 (8) = 1003.33, p < .001, difference
test scaling correction = 1.52) and for domestic
domestically. Hence, H7 was refuted. Supporting
sample (ΔS–B χ2 (8) = 1248.10, p < .001, difference
hypothesis H13, willingness to adopt PNPI had positive
test scaling correction = 1.45) were also significant.
association with travel intention in both the sample.
Overall, we find that the results obtained from the
From among the direct predictors of visit intention,
maximum likelihood approach were similar to that of
desire was the most potent predictor followed by PNPI
BSEM. However, only the model fit indices for the inter-
in both the samples.
national travellers’ sample had an acceptable fit. The fit
indices for the domestic sample were poor. The use of
diffuse (non-informative) priors is hence justified, as the
Indirect effects
results of BSEM are also confirmed by the maximum
Finding indirect effects using the potential outcomes likelihood-based SEM.
framework provides five average level causal effects
that incorporate the XM interaction. Those are: the
Demographic and socioeconomic characteristics
pure natural direct effect (PNDE), the pure natural indir-
and perceived severity of COVID-19 and adoption
ect effect (PNIE), the total natural direct effect (TNDE),
of PNPI
the total natural indirect effect (TNIE) and the con-
trolled direct effect (CDE) (VanderWeele & Vansteelandt, The perceived severity of COVID-19 and adoption of
2013). Attitude, subjective norm, PBC, PAE and fre- PNPIs were compared among the travellers of different
quency of past travel were positively while NAE was genders, age groups, education levels, marital status,
negatively associated with travel intention through occupation, income and with different purpose of
desire. (Table 4). Hence, hypotheses H9a, H9b, H9c, travel (see Table 6). Female travellers perceived COVID-
H9d and H9e were supported. The perceived severity 19 as more severe and wish to adopt PNPIs compared
of COVID-19 positively affected travel intention both to male travellers. Travellers in different age groups
internationally and domestically when mediated by differed in their perception of COVID-19 severity and
PNPI. Nevertheless, the perceived severity of COVID-19 wish to adopt PNPIs differently in both the samples.
has no indirect effect on travel intention through Older travellers perceived COVID-19 as more severe
desire in both the samples and hence, hypothesis H10 and wished to adopt PNPIs during travel. International
was supported. All the constructs of the MGB had sig- travellers of 50 years of age and more, whereas domestic
nificant indirect effect on intention to travel interna- travellers of 40 years of age and more perceived COVID-
tionally and domestically through desire. PBC was the 19 as more severe compared to younger travellers. Tra-
most potent distal predictor of travel intention in vellers with different education level in both the
both the samples followed by PAE and attitude. The samples did not perceive COVID-19 differently.
posterior predictive p-values of .01 in both samples However, they differed in the willingness to adopt
 TOURISM RECREATION RESEARCH 9

Table 4. Total and pure effect of independent variables on the dependent variable
International travellers Domestic travellers
Paths PNDE PNIE TNDE TNIE CDE PNDE PNIE TNDE TNIE CDE
AT→DZ→TI −0.09* 0.10*** −0.09* 0.10*** −0.08*** 0.08 0.10*** 0.10* 0.13*** −0.10****
SN→DZ→TI 0.11* 0.07*** 0.13* 0.08*** 0.00 0.01 0.09*** 0.01 0.09*** 0.00
PBC→DZ→TI −0.09 0.22*** −0.04 0.28*** −0.21*** 0.03 0.24*** 0.06* 0.27**** −0.05
PAE→DZ→TI 0.17** 0.15*** 0.24** 0.22*** −0.02* 0.00 0.19*** 0.01 0.20*** −0.04
NAE→DZ→TI −0.03 −0.11*** −0.03 −0.11*** −0.03*** −0.03 −0.14*** −0.03 −0.13*** 0.00
PSC→DZ→TI 0.03 −0.01 0.03 −0.01 0.04 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.02
FPT→DZ→TI 0.03 0.05*** 0.03 0.05*** 0.03 −0.03 0.05*** −0.03 0.05*** −0.03
PSC→PNPI→TI −0.07 0.01*** −0.08 0.01* 0.04* −0.06 0.01*** −0.06 0.01*** 0.02
Model fit
PPp .01 .01
*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
PNDE, pure natural direct effect; PNIE, pure natural indirect effect; TNDE, total natural direct effect; TNIE, total natural indirect effect; CDE, controlled direct
effect; PPp, posterior predictive p-value.

PNPIs. Travellers with postgraduate and above degrees
showed more willingness to adopt PNPIs than travellers
with intermediate and graduate degrees.
Travellers’ belonging to different marital status per-
ceived COVID-19 differently but did not differ in their
willingness to adopt PNPIs. Married travellers perceived
very high risk of COVID-19 compared to single travellers
(Lau et al., 2004). Travellers who were bachelors or never
married showed less willingness to adopt the PNPIs
compared to others. In both the samples, travellers
belonging to different occupation level did not differ
in their perceived severity of COVID-19 and adoption
of PNPIs. International travellers with different income
levels also did not differ in their PNPI adoption. Never-
theless, domestic travellers with annual household
income less than 5 lac showed less willingness in adopt-
ing PNPIs during travel. Travellers with different purpose
of travel did not differ in their perceived severity of
COVID19, but they differed in willingness to adopt
PNPIs. Only travellers travelling for business, holidays,
visiting family and friends, conferences, and medical
treatment showed willingness to adopt PNPIs. People

Table 5. Direct and indirect effects using maximum likelihood method

Paths International travellers Decision Domestic travellers Decision
Direct effects
AT→DZ 0.16*** H1 supported 0.13*** H1 supported
SN→DZ 0.13*** H2 supported 0.14*** H2 supported
PBC→DZ 0.37*** H3 supported 0.34** H3 supported
PBC→TI −0.01 H4 refuted 0.01 H4 refuted
PAE→DZ 0.29*** H5a supported 0.30*** H5a supported
NAE→DZ −0.21*** H5b supported −0.22*** H5b supported
PSC→DZ −0.04 H10 refuted 0.01 H10 refuted
PSC→PNPI 0.20*** H11 supported 0.14*** H11 supported
PSC→TI 0.03* H12 refuted 0.01 H12 refuted
PNPI→TI 0.06*** H13 supported 0.05*** H13 supported
FPT→DZ 0.09*** H6 supported 0.08*** H6 supported
FPT→TI −0.01 H7 refuted −0.02* H7 refuted
DZ→TI 0.95*** H8 supported 0.94*** H8 supported
Indirect effects
AT→DZ→TI 0.15*** H9a supported 0.12*** H9a supported
SN→DZ→TI 0.12*** H9b supported 0.14*** H9b supported
PBC→DZ→TI 0.35*** 0.32***
PAE→DZ→TI 0.27*** H9c supported 0.28*** H9c supported
NAE→DZ→TI −0.20*** H9d supported −0.21*** H9d supported
PSC→DZ→TI −0.03 0.01
PSC→PNPI→TI 0.01*** H14 supported 0.01*** H14 supported
FPT→DZ→TI 0.08*** H9e supported 0.08*** H9e supported
Model fit indices
Chi-square 36.29*** 266.17***
df 7 7
CFI 0.99 0.89
TLI 0.95 0.64
RMSEA 0.09 0.25
SRMR 0.03 0.14
*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
AT, attitude; SN, subjective norm; PBC, perceived behavioural control; PAE, positive anticipated emotion; NAE, negative anticipated emotion; PSC, perceived
severity of COVID-19; PNPI, willingness to adopt PNPIs; FPV, frequency of past visit; DZ, desire; TI, travel intention; df, degrees of freedom; CFI, comparative fit
index; TLI, Tucker–Lewis index; RMSEA, root mean square error of approximation; SRMR, standardized root mean square residual.
10 S. S. DAS AND A. K. TIWARI

Table 6. Variations in perceived severity of COVID-19 and Attitude, subjective norm, PBC, PAE and frequency of
adoption of PNPI across demographic and socioeconomic past travel behaviour influence desire positively while
factors NAE influence desire negatively PAE was a strong predic-
International
travellers Domestic travellers
tor of desire and desire was a potent predictor of travel
Characteristics PC PNPI PC PNPI intention. Such findings confirm earlier research (Lee
Gender −3.10** −2.67** −2.84** −3.86*** et al., 2012; Meng & Choi, 2016; Yi et al., 2020).
Male–female −0.54** −0.23** −0.45** −0.31*** The addition of new constructs of the perceived
Age 2.85* 9.17*** 3.67** 20.31***
(20–29) –(50–59) – – – −0.52***
severity of COVID-19 and willingness to adopt PNPIs
(20–29) –(>60) – – – −0.85*** were justified and contributed to theory broadening
(30–39) –(40–49) – – – −0.35** (Lee et al., 2012; Perugini & Bagozzi, 2001). In line with
(30–39) –(50–59) – −0.58*** – −0.77***
(30–39) –(>60) −1.09* −0.77*** −0.90* −1.10*** the extant literature on MGB, desire was found to be a
(40–49) –(50–59) – −0.40* – – strong predictor of intention formation (Bagozzi & Dho-
(40–49) –(>60) – 0.54* – –
Education level 0.20 7.42*** 1.60 8.57*** lakia, 2006; Lee et al., 2012). The perceived severity of
Intermediate – – −0.71* – −0.58*** COVID-19 decreased both the desire and intention to
postgraduate
Intermediate – – −0.83** – −0.70*** travel internationally as well as domestically (Lee et al.,
postgraduate and above 2012; Reisinger & Mavondo, 2005; Sönmez & Graefe,
Graduate – – −0.32* – −0.31*
postgraduate
1998). Nevertheless, the perceived severity of COVID-
Graduate – – −0.44*** – −0.43** 19 influenced travel intentions indirectly via the willing-
postgraduate and above ness to adopt PNPI. The perceived severity of COVID-19
Marital status 4.01** 1.28 5.67*** 1.95
Single – married −0.69** – −0.85*** – did limit the desire and intention to travel, but not when
Occupation level 0.44 0.84 1.17 1.24 the travellers thought of adopting some protective
Annual household income 0.44 0.26 1.33 4.40**
(<5 lac)–(15–24.9 lac) – – – −0.35* health behaviours in terms of PNPI. Adoption of PNPI
(<5 lac)–(25–34.9 lac) – – – −0.51** reduced the risk of infection to an acceptable level and
Purpose 0.12 11.02*** 1.90 7.54***
Business – employment – 1.00*** – – reinforce the travel intention (Lee et al., 2012).
Business – education – 0.65** – 0.69** PAE of travellers was a potent predictor of their desire
Leisure – employment – 1.17*** – –
Leisure – education – 0.82*** – 0.48**
and intention to travel. Because, travellers get motivated
VFFa – employment – 0.96*** – 0.41* by the excitement or satisfaction they expect from the
VFF – education – 0.61** – 0.61*** travel (Kim et al., 2017). This reflects their emotional
Conference – – 1.00*** – 0.45*
employment decision-making. On the contrary, NAE decreased the
Conference – education – 0.65** – 0.65*** desire as well as the intention to travel.
Employment – other – −1.28*** – −0.74*
Education – other – −0.93** – −0.64*** Though, according to the protection-motivation
Note. Scores in bold face are the t (Gender only) and F scores for all others. theory (Rogers, 1975), high levels of perceived risk
Non-bold values are simple mean differences. influence willingness to adopt protective measures,
*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
a
VFF denotes visiting family and friends. both the risk perception and protective measure adop-
tion vary on the basis of different demographic factors
(Bish & Michie, 2010). Consistent with earlier studies,
travelling for employment and education showed less female travellers perceived COVID-19 as more severe
willingness to adopt PNPIs. (Díaz et al., 2016; Hanafiah & Wan, 2020) and showed
willingness to adopt PNPIs more readily (Lau et al.,
2004; Moran & Del Valle, 2016; Yuki et al., 2020) during
Conclusion
travel compared to male counterparts in both the
There is scant information available about how an samples. This is because of the social role of women as
endemic such as COVID-19 impacts potential travellers’ caregivers of their children and other family members
intention and decision-making regarding international (Reisinger & Crotts, 2009). Older travellers perceived
as well as domestic travel. The apprehension of contract- COVID-19 with severe outcomes and hence wished to
ing COVID-19 while travelling influenced travel nega- adopt PNPIs during travel. This is because, older
tively (UNWTO, 2020b). To our knowledge, this is the people are aware that they are at the highest risk for
first attempt, which improves the understanding of the severe COVID-19 symptoms (Bavel et al., 2020) and
desire and intention to travel internationally and have stronger intention to comply with the preventive
within the country during crisis like COVID-19. Sup- measures recommended by the government (Bults
ported by Lee et al. (2012), this study employed an et al., 2011).
extended model of the MGB to understand the distal Contrary to the findings of a study during this pan-
as well as the proximal predictors of travel intention. demic (e.g. Li et al., 2020b) and earlier studies,

(Sharangpani et al., 2011) education level had no impact
on the perceived severity of COVID-19. However, travel-
lers with higher educational attainment showed more
willingness to adopt PNPIs (Bish & Michie, 2010).
Highly educated people more readily comply with the
preventive measures (Barr et al., 2008). Married people
are believed to be more responsible and have strong
intention to comply with the preventive measures
(Bults et al., 2011) that is the reason why married travel-
lers perceived very high risk of COVID-19 compared to
travellers who were single (Lau et al., 2004). During
this pandemic, travellers belonging to different occu-
pational levels did not perceive COVID-19 differently
and no difference was noticed in their adoption of
PNPIs. The perceived severity of COVID-19 did not
differ among the travellers according to their household
income level. International travellers with different
household income levels did not differ in their PNPI
adoption. Nevertheless, it was found that domestic tra-
vellers with low income showed less willingness in
adopting PNPIs during travel. This can be attributed to
the extra cost involved in purchasing sanitizers and
masks at the time of financial crisis (Aledort et al.,
2007; WHO, 2020). Travellers with different purpose of
the travel did not differ in their perceived severity of
COVID-19, but they differed in their adoption of PNPIs.
Only short-stay travellers showed more willingness to
adopt PNPIs during travel unlike travellers whose
purpose of visit were employment and education.
Theoretical implications
First, the Extended Model of Goal Directed Behaviour
(EMGB) explained a significant proportion of variance
in the travel intention during COVID-19 pandemic. It
also indicated the importance of PNPI in travel
decision-making of Indians amid COVID-19. This
finding also extended the findings of Li et al. (2020a)
by explaining extra variance in peri- or post-COVID-19
travel intention beyond TPB. A simultaneous modelling
of different predictors eliminate model misspecification
and contribute to the better understanding of the
travel intention. EMGB proves to be a suitable frame-
work for understanding travel intention during a pan-
demic. PNE and NAE had a significant effect on travel
intention, suggesting the powerful influence of
emotional factors on travel intention during a pan-
demic. The frequency of past travel behaviour directly
predict desire but indirectly predict travel intention
through desire. This indicates that travellers with past
travel experiences are more likely to develop a desire
to pursue a similar experience than those without an
experience. Last but not the least, BSEM provided
TOURISM RECREATION RESEARCH 11
better result compared to the maximum likelihood
approach.
Practical implications
Findings provide several practical implications for gov-
ernment agencies and transport systems. First, the inten-
tion to travel during COVID-19 endemic is resilient
because travellers intending to travel abroad or within
the country see PNPIs as possible preventive behaviours
which can reduce the risk of contagion while travelling.
Adoption of PNPI vary on the basis of demographic and
socioeconomic characteristics of the travellers (Raude &
Setbon, 2009). Hence, educational initiatives might be
required. Guidelines for PNPI should be made available
on a continuous basis before and during travel in all
modes of transportation directed at travellers of all
demographic and socioeconomic background. Trans-
port operators can provide information concerning
COVID-19 as well as distribute complimentary sanitizers
and face shields to travellers which might reduce their
anxiety about safe travelling. For example, some airlines
have started providing sanitizers and face shields to pas-
sengers. Similar actions can be undertaken by other
means of transportation operators. Transport systems
should also provide to the staff in PNPI which can engen-
der their own safety as well as will enable them to assist
their passengers and guests. This creates a positive
brand identity in the minds of potential travellers who
might consider such hygiene concerned transport
systems in similar situations in future. Similarly, hospital-
ity services or hotels should make available sanitizers,
hand gloves and masks in the reception area at pro-
active replenishment. Garbage bags for the disposal of
used tissues or masks should be provided for staff and
guests. Information kiosks should be provided for
guests at convenient places. As COVID-19 has been
declared as an endemic with no vaccines in sight, inter-
national and national governments should encourage
public and private transport systems and operators to
promote health, hygiene and adoption of PNPIs during
travel.
Directions for future research
Notwithstanding the convenience nature of sample limit-
ing the generalizability of the findings, the present study
may be extended in the following directions. First, future
research should consider the travellers of different
nationalities. Therefore, to generalize the findings of
this study, future research using the EMGB involving tra-
vellers of other nationalities is recommended. Future
studies might take into account the travel intention of
12 S. S. DAS AND A. K. TIWARI
people from least affected places to most affected places
as not all countries and cities in a country are equally
affected. Travellers’ intention to travel might differ
when they see the failure of the most developed
countries with advanced health care facilities in contain-
ing the spread of COVID-19. It is also true for the travellers
when they see metros like Mumbai, Delhi, Chennai and
Kolkata fail to contain COVID-19. Second, future studies
should address the probable variations in the intention
to travel to the most affected countries (like USA, Italy,
France, UK) or places (Mumbai, Delhi, Chennai, Kolkata)
within the country by incorporating the preferred desti-
nation in the model. Finally, future research might con-
sider longitudinal studies to understand the effect of
pandemics on travel intention.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Notes on contributors
Sitanshu Sekhar Das is an Assistant Professor at the Rajagiri
Business School, Kochi, India. His research interests include
organizational behaviour, subjective well-being, and tourism
and has published in journal of internationals repute. He is
also Editorial Board Member at Data in Brief.
Aviral Tiwari is an Associate Professor at the Rajagiri Business
School, Kochi, India. Tiwari’s research interests focus on
tourism and macroeconomy and his research featured in
Annals of Tourism Research, Tourism Management, Tourism Econ-
omics, Current Issues in Tourism, Journal of Business Ethics, Energy
Economics. He is also an active editorial board member of
various regional, national and international journals.
ORCID
Sitanshu Sekhar Das http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6240-7610
Aviral Kumar Tiwari http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1822-9263
References
Airport Authority of India. (2019). 24th Annual Report 2018–
2019. Airport Authority of India.
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
Aledort, J. E., Lurie, N., Wasserman, J., & Bozzette, S. A. (2007).
Non-pharmaceutical public health interventions for pan-
demic influenza: An evaluation of the evidence base. BMC
Public Health, 7(1), 208. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-
7-208
Bagozzi, R., & Dholakia, U. (2006). Antecedents and purchase con-
sequences of customer participation in small group brand
communities. International Journal of Research in Marketing,
23(1), 45–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2006.01.005
Bagozzi, R. P. (1992). The self-regulation of attitudes, intentions
and behavior. Social Psychology Quarterly, 55(2), 178–204.
https://doi.org/10.2307/2786945
Bagozzi, R. P., Baumgartner, H., & Pieters, R. (1998). Goal-
directed emotions. Cognition and Emotion, 12(1), 1–26.
https://doi.org/10.1080/026999398379754
Bamberg, S., Ajzen, I., & Schmidt, P. (2003). Choice of travel
mode in the theory of planned behavior : The roles of past
behavior, habit, and reasoned action. Basic and Applied
Social Psychology, 25(3), 175–187. https://doi.org/10.1207/
S15324834BASP2503_01
Barr, M., Raphael, B., Taylor, M., Stevens, G., Jorm, L., Giffin, M., &
Lujic, S. (2008). Pandemic influenza in Australia: Using tele-
phone surveys to measure perceptions of threat and willing-
ness to comply. BMC Infectious Diseases, 8(1), 1–14. https://
doi.org/10.1186/1471-2334-8-117
Bavel, J. J. V., Baicker, K., Boggio, P. S., Capraro, V., Cichocka, A.,
Cikara, M., Crockett, M. J., Crum, A. J., Douglas, K. M.,
Druckman, J. N., Drury, J., Dube, O., Ellemers, N., Finkel, E.
J., Fowler, J. H., Gelfand, M., Han, S., Haslam, S. A., Jetten,
J., … Willer, R. (2020). Using social and behavioural science
to support COVID-19 pandemic response. Nature Human
Behaviour, 4(5), 460–471. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-
020-0884-z
Benkouiten, S., Al-Tawfiq, J. A., Memish, Z. A., Albarrak, A., &
Gautret, P. (2019). Clinical respiratory infections and pneu-
monia during the Hajj pilgrimage: A systematic review.
Travel Medicine and Infectious Disease, 28, 15–26. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.tmaid.2018.12.002
Benkouiten, S., Brouqui, P., & Gautret, P. (2014). Non-pharma-
ceutical interventions for the prevention of respiratory
tract infections during Hajj pilgrimage. Travel Medicine and
Infectious Disease, 12(5), 429–442. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
tmaid.2014.06.005
Bish, A., & Michie, S. (2010). Demographic and attitudinal deter-
minants of protective behaviours during a pandemic: A
review. British Journal of Health Psychology, 15(4), 797–824.
https://doi.org/10.1348/135910710X485826
Browne, A., Ahmad, S. S. t. O., Beck, C. R., & Nguyen-Van-Tam, J.
S. (2016). The roles of transportation and transportation
hubs in the propagation of influenza and coronaviruses: A
systematic review. Journal of Travel Medicine, 23(1), 1–7.
https://doi.org/10.1093/jtm/tav002
Bults, M., Beaujean, D. J. M. A., De Zwart, O., Kok, G., Van
Empelen, P., Van Steenbergen, J. E., Richardus, J. H., &
Voeten, H. A. C. M. (2011). Perceived risk, anxiety, and behav-
ioural responses of the general public during the early phase
of the Influenza A (H1N1) pandemic in the Netherlands:
Results of three consecutive online surveys. BMC Public
Health, 11, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-11-2
Byrne, B. M. (2010). Structural equation modeling with AMOS:
Basic concepts, applications, and programming (3rd ed.).
Routledge.
Cahyanto, I., Wiblishauser, M., Pennington-Gray, L., & Schroeder, A.
(2016). The dynamics of travel avoidance: The case of Ebola in
the U.S. Tourism Management Perspectives, 20, 195–203. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2016.09.004
CDC. (2020a). Coughing and sneezing. https://www.cdc.
gov/healthywater/hygiene/etiquette/coughing_sneezing.
html.
CDC. (2020b). Nonpharmaceutical interventions. https://www.
cdc.gov/nonpharmaceutical-interventions/index.html.

Conner, M., & Armitage, C. (1998). Extending the theory of
planned behavior: A review of the literature and avenues
for future research. Journal of Applied and Social
Psychology, 28(15), 1429–1464. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.
1559-1816.1998.tb01685.x
Cowling, B. J., Ali, S. T., Ng, T. W. Y., Tsang, T. K., Li, J. C. M., Fong, M. W.,
Liao, Q., Kwan, M. Y., Lee, S. L., Chiu, S. S., Wu, J. T., Wu, P., & Leung,
G. M. (2020). Impact assessment of non-pharmaceutical inter-
ventions against coronavirus disease 2019 and influenza in
Hong Kong: an observational study. The Lancet Public Health, 5
(5),e279–e288.https://doi.org/10.1016/s2468-2667(20)30090-6
Deng, R., & Ritchie, B. W. (2018). International university stu-
dents’ travel risk perceptions: An exploratory study.
Current Issues in Tourism, 21(4), 455–476. https://doi.org/10.
1080/13683500.2016.1142939
Dey, S. (2020, May 20). States see surge in Coronavirus cases
after lockdown relaxation. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.
com/articleshow/76012966.cms?utm_source=contentofin-
terest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst.
Díaz, A., Soriano, J. F., & Beleña, Á. (2016 October). Perceived
vulnerability to disease questionnaire: Factor structure, psy-
chometric properties and gender differences. Personality
and Individual Differences, 101, 42–49. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.paid.2016.05.036
Fricker, R. D. (2008). Sampling methods for web and e-mail
surveys. In N. Fielding, R. M. Lee, & G. Blank (Eds.), The SAGE
handbook of online research methods (pp. 195–216). Sage.
Gössling, S., Scott, D., & Hall, C. M. (2020). Pandemics, tourism
and global change: A rapid assessment of COVID-19.
Journal of Sustainable Tourism. Advance online publication.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2020.1758708
Han, H., & Hyun, S. S. (2017). Impact of hotel-restaurant image
and quality of physical-environment, service, and food on
satisfaction and intention. International Journal of
Hospitality Management, 63, 82–92. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.ijhm.2017.03.006
Hanafiah, M. K., & Wan, C. D. (2020). Public knowledge, percep-
tion and communication behavior surrounding COVID-19 in
Malaysia. Advance: a preprint Sage online community.
https://doi.org/10.31124/advance.12102816.v1.
Indian Railways. (2019). Year book, 2018-19. Ministry of
Railways, Government of India. http://www.indianrailways.
gov.in/railwayboard/uploads/directorate/stat_econ/Year_
Book/Year20Book202018-19-English.pdf.
International Air Transport Association. (2019). World air trans-
port statistics. https://www.iata.org/en/publications/store/
world-air-transport-statistics/.
Jager,J.,Putnick,D.L.,&Bornstein,M.H.(2017).II.Morethanjustcon-
venient: The scientific merits of homogeneous convenience
samples. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child
Development, 82(2), 13–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/mono.12296
Jefferson, T., Demicheli, V., Rivetti, D., Jones, M., Di Pietrantonj, C.,
& Rivetti, A. (2006). Antivirals for influenza in healthy adults:
Systematic review. Lancet, 367(9507), 303–313. https://doi.
org/10.1016/S0140-6736(06)67970-1
Kampf, G., Todt, D., Pfaender, S., & Steinmann, E. (2020).
Persistence of coronaviruses on inanimate surfaces and their
inactivation with biocidal agents. Journal of Hospital Infection,
104(3), 246–251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhin.2020.01.022
Kantor, B. N., & Kantor, J. (2020). Nonpharmaceutical interven-
tions for pandemic COVID-19: A cross-sectional investigation
of US general public beliefs, attitudes, and actions. medRxiv.
TOURISM RECREATION RESEARCH 13
Kim, M. J., Lee, M. J., Lee, C. K., & Song, H. J. (2012). Does gender
affect Korean tourists’ overseas travel? Applying the model
of goal-directed behavior. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism
Research, 17(5), 509–533. https://doi.org/10.1080/
10941665.2011.627355
Kim, M. J., Park, J. Y., Lee, C.-K., & Chung, J. Y. (2017). The role of
perceived ethics in the decision-making process for respon-
sible tourism using an extended model of goal-directed
behavior. International Journal of Culture, Tourism and
Hospitality Research, 4(4), 376–388. https://doi.org/10.
21298/IJTHR.2017.4.31.4.5
Kissler, S. M., Tedijanto, C., Goldstein, E., Grad, Y. H., & Lipsitch,
M. (2020). Projecting the transmission dynamics of SARS-
CoV-2 through the postpandemic period. Science, 368
(6493), 860–868. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abb5793
Kline, R. B. (2009). Principles and practice of structural equation
modeling (3rd ed.). Guilford Press.
Lai, S., Ruktanonchai, N. W., Zhou, L., Prosper, O., Luo, W., Floyd,
J. R., Wesolowski, A., Santillana, M., Zhang, C., Du, X., Yu, H., &
Tatem, A. J. (2020). Effect of non-pharmaceutical interven-
tions for containing the COVID-19 outbreak in China.
medRxiv. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.03.03.20029843
Lau, J. T. F., Yang, X., Tsui, H., Pang, E., & Kim, J. H. (2004). SARS
preventive and risk behaviours of Hong Kong air travellers.
Epidemiology and Infection, 132(4), 727–736. https://doi.
org/10.1017/S0950268804002225
Lee, C. K., Song, H. J., Bendle, L. J., Kim, M. J., & Han, H. (2012).
The impact of non-pharmaceutical interventions for 2009
H1N1 influenza on travel intentions: A model of goal-
directed behavior. Tourism Management, 33(1), 89–99.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2011.02.006
Leone, L., Perugini, M., & Ercolani, A. (2004). Studying, practi-
cing, and mastering: A test of the model of goal-directed
behavior (MGB) in the software learning domain. Journal
of Applied Social Psychology, 34(9), 1945–1973. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2004.tb02594.x
Lepp, A., & Gibson, H. (2003). Tourist roles, perceived
risk and international tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 30
(3), 606–624. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-7383(03)00024-0
Li, J., Nguyen, T., & Coca-Stefaniak, J. A. (2020a). Coronavirus
impacts on post-pandemic planned travel behaviours.
Annals of Tourism Research, 102964. Advance online publi-
cation. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2020.102964
Li, J., Yang, A., Dou, K., Wang, L., Zhang, M., & Lin, X. (2020b). Chinese
public’s knowledge, perceived severity, and perceived controll-
ability of the COVID-19 and their associations with emotional
and behavioural reactions, social participation, and precaution-
ary behaviour: A national survey. PsyArXiv. Advance online pub-
lication. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/5tmsh
Lokhorst, A. M., & Staats, H. (2006). Understanding farmers’
intentions to carry out agricultural nature management:
Using an adapted EMGB. Leiden Universit.
Meng, B., & Choi, K. (2016). The role of authenticity in forming
slow tourists’ intentions: Developing an extended model of
goal-directed behavior. Tourism Management, 57, 397–410.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2016.07.003
Merrill, R. M., MacKinnon, D. P., & Mayer, L. S. (1994). Estimation
of moderated mediation effects in experimental studies.
Unpublished manuscript, Department of Psychology,
Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ.
Ministry of Tourism. (2019). India Tourism Statistics 2019,
Government of India.
14 S. S. DAS AND A. K. TIWARI
Miočević, M., Gonzalez, O., Valente, M. J., & MacKinnon, D. P.
(2018). A tutorial in Bayesian potential outcomes mediation
analysis. Structural Equation Modeling, 25(1), 121–136.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2017.1342541
Miočević, M., MacKinnon, D. P., & Levy, R. (2017). Power in
Bayesian mediation analysis for small sample research.
Structural Equation Modeling, 24(5), 666–683. https://doi.
org/10.1080/10705511.2017.1312407
Mitra, R. (2020, June 7). Domestic tourism will revive sector
post lockdown: Tourism Minister Prahlad Singh Patel.
https://www.newindianexpress.com/thesundaystandard/
2020/jun/07/interview–domestic-tourism-will-revive-sector-
post-lockdown-tourism-minister-prahlad-singh-patel-
2153219.html.
Moran, K. R., & Del Valle, S. Y. (2016). A meta-analysis of the associ-
ation between gender and protective behaviors in response to
respiratory epidemics and pandemics. PLoS ONE, 11(10),
102964. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0164541
Muthén, B., & Asparouhov, T. (2012). Bayesian structural
equation modeling: A more flexible representation of sub-
stantive theory. Psychological Methods, 17(3), 313–335.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026802
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2010). Mplus user’s guide (6th
ed.). Muthén & Muthén.
Neuburger, L., & Egger, R. (2020). Travel risk perception and
travel behaviour during the COVID-19 pandemic 2020: A
case study of the DACH region. Current Issues in Tourism.
Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/
13683500.2020.1803807
Nicoll, A. (2006). Personal (non-pharmaceutical) protective
measures for reducing transmission of influenza–ECDC
interim recommendations. Eurosurveillance, 11(41), 3061.
https://doi.org/10.2807/esw.11.41.03061-en
Oliver, R. L. (1997). Satisfaction: A behavioral perspective on the
consumer. McGraw-Hill.
Oshitani, H. (2006). Potential benefits and limitations of various
strategies to mitigate the impact of an influenza pandemic.
Journal of Infection and Chemotherapy, 12(4), 167–171.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10156-006-0453-Z
Perugini, M., & Bagozzi, R. (2001). The role of desires and antici-
pated emotions in goal-directed behaviors: Broadening and
deepening the theory of planned behavior. British Journal of
Social Psychology, 40(1), 79–98. https://doi.org/10.1348/
014466601164704
Perugini, M., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2004). The distinction between
desires and intentions. European Journal of Social
Psychology, 34(1), 69–84. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.186
Pololikashvili, Z. (2020). COVID-19 statement. UNWTO. https://
www.unwto.org/news/covid-19-statement-zurab-
pololikashvili.
Raude, J., & Setbon, M. (2009). Lay perceptions of the
pandemic influenza threat. European Journal of
Epidemiology, 24(7), 339–342. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10654-009-9351-x
Reisinger, Y., & Crotts, J. C. (2009). The influence of gender on
travel risk perceptions, safety, and travel intentions. Tourism
Analysis, 14(6), 793–807. https://doi.org/10.3727/
108354210X12645141401269
Reisinger, Y., & Mavondo, F. (2005). Travel anxiety and inten-
tions to travel internationally: Implications of travel risk per-
ception. Journal of Travel Research, 43(3), 212–225. https://
doi.org/10.1177/0047287504272017
Rittichainuwat, B. N., & Chakraborty, G. (2009). Perceived travel
risks regarding terrorism and disease: The case of Thailand.
Tourism Management, 30(3), 410–418. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.tourman.2008.08.001
Rogers, R. W. (1975). A protection motivation theory of fear
appeals and attitude change. The Journal of Psychology, 91
(1), 93–114. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.1975.9915803
Schlagenhauf, P., Grobusch, M. P., Maier, J. D., & Gautret, P.
(2020). Repurposing antimalarials and other drugs for
COVID-19. Travel Medicine and Infectious Disease, 101658.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmaid.2020.101658
Sharangpani, R., Boulton, K. E., Wells, E., & Kim, C. (2011). Attitudes
and behaviors of international air travelers toward pandemic
influenza. Journal of Travel Medicine, 18(3), 203–208. https://
doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8305.2011.00500.x
Singh, M. K., & Neog, Y. (2020). Contagion effect of COVID-19
outbreak – Another recipe for disaster on Indian economy.
Journal of Public Affairs, e2171. Advance online publication.
https://doi.org/10.1002/pa.2171
Smid, S. C., McNeish, D., Miočević, M., & van de Schoot, R. (2020).
Bayesian versus frequentist estimation for structural equation
models in small sample contexts: A systematic review.
Structural Equation Modeling, 27(1), 131–161. https://doi.org/
10.1080/10705511.2019.1577140
Song, H. J., Lee, C. K., Norman, W. C., & Han, H. (2012). The role
of responsible gambling strategy in forming behavioral
intention: An application of a model of goal-directed behav-
ior. Journal of Travel Research, 51(4), 512–523. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0047287511418365
Song, H. J., Lee, C. K., Reisinger, Y., & Xu, H. L. (2017). The role of
visa exemption in Chinese tourists’ decision-making: A
model of goal-directed behavior. Journal of Travel and
Tourism Marketing, 34(5), 666–679. https://doi.org/10.1080/
10548408.2016.1223777
Song, H. J., You, G. J., Reisinger, Y., Lee, C. K., & Lee, S. K. (2014).
Behavioral intention of visitors to an Oriental medicine fes-
tival: An extended model of goal directed behavior.
Tourism Management, 42(3), 101–113. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.tourman.2013.11.003
Sönmez, S. F., & Graefe, A. R. (1998). Determining future travel
behavior from past travel experience and perceptions of risk
and safety. Journal of Travel Research, 37(2), 172–177.
https://doi.org/10.1177/004728759803700209
Sridhar, S., Régner, I., Brouqui, P., & Gautret, P. (2016).
Methodologies for measuring travelers’ risk perception of
infectious diseases: A systematic review. Travel Medicine
and Infectious Disease, 14(4), 360–372. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.tmaid.2016.05.012
Sun, J., Shi, Z., & Xu, H. (2020). Non-pharmaceutical interven-
tions used for COVID-19 had a major impact on reducing
influenza in China in 2020. Journal of Travel Medicine,
taaa064. https://doi.org/10.1093/jtm/taaa064
Taglioni, F., Cartoux, M., Dellagi, K., Dalban, C., Fianu, A., Carrat,
F., & Favier, F. (2013). The influenza A (H1N1) pandemic in
Reunion Island: Knowledge, perceived risk and precaution-
ary behaviour. BMC Infectious Diseases, 13(1), 1–12. https://
doi.org/10.1186/1471-2334-13-34
Taylor, S. A. (2007). The addition of anticipated regret to atti-
tudinally based, goal-directed models of information
search behaviours under conditions of uncertainty and
risk. British Journal of Social Psychology, 46(4), 739–768.
https://doi.org/10.1348/014466607X174194

Taylor, S. A., Ishida, C., & Wallace, D. W. (2009). Intention to
engage in digital piracy: A conceptual model and empirical
test. Journal of Service Research, 11(3), 246–262. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1094670508328924
Thomas, Y., Boquete-Suter, P., Koch, D., Pittet, D., & Kaiser, L.
(2014). Survival of influenza virus on human fingers.
Clinical Microbiology and Infection, 20(1), 58–64. https://doi.
org/10.1111/1469-0691.12324
UNWTO. (2020a). 100% of global destinations now have covid-
19 travel restrictions. https://www.unwto.org/news/covid-
19-travel-restrictions.
UNWTO. (2020b). COVID-19: UNWTO calls on tourism to be part
of recovery plans. https://www.unwto.org/news/covid-19-
unwto-calls-on-tourism-to-be-part-of-recovery-plans.
Valencia, J., & Crouch, G. (2008). Travel behavior in troubled
times: The role of consumer self-confidence. Journal of
Travel and Tourism Marketing, 25(1), 25–42. https://doi.org/
10.1080/10548400802164871
VanderWeele, T. J., & Vansteelandt, S. (2013). Mediation analysis
with multiple mediators. Epidemiologic Methods, 2(1), 95–115.
https://doi.org/10.1515/em-2012-0010
Webmed. (2020). COVID-19 Vaccine. https://www.webmd.
com/lung/covid-19-vaccine#1.
Wen, J., Wang, W., Kozak, M., Liu, X., & Hou, H. (2020). Many
brains are better than one: the importance of interdisciplin-
ary studies on COVID-19 in and beyond tourism. Tourism
Recreation Research. https://doi.org/10.1080/02508281.
2020.1761120
Wolff, K., Larsen, S., & Øgaard, T. (2019). How to define and
measure risk perceptions. Annals of Tourism Research, 79
(November), 102759. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2019.
102759
World Health Organization. (2018). Managing epidemics. Key
facts about major deadly diseases. https://apps.who.int/iris/
handle/10665/272442.
TOURISM RECREATION RESEARCH 15
World Health Organization. (2019). Non-pharmaceutical public
health measures for mitigating the risk and impact of epidemic
and pandemic influenza. https://www.who.int/influenza/
publications/public_health_measures/publication/en/.
World Health Organization. (2020). Calibrating long-term non-
pharmaceutical interventions for COVID-19: Principles and
facilitation tools. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/
332099.
Wu, E., Law, R., & Jiang, B. (2010). The impact of infectious
diseases on hotel occupancy rate based on independent com-
ponent analysis. International Journal of Hospitality
Management, 29(4), 751–753. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.
2009.07.001
Xiao, J., Shiu, E. Y. C., Gao, H., Wong, J. Y., Fong, M. W., Ryu, S., &
Cowling, B. J. (2020). Nonpharmaceutical measures for pan-
demic influenza in nonhealthcare settings—personal pro-
tective and environmental measures. Emerging Infectious
Diseases, 26(5), 967–975. https://doi.org/10.3201/eid2605.
190994
Yang, Y., Zhang, H., & Chen, X. (2020). Coronavirus pandemic
and tourism: Dynamic stochastic general equilibrium model-
ing of infectious disease outbreak. Annals of Tourism
Research, 83(2020), 102913. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
annals. 2020.102913
Yeh, S. S. (2020). Tourism recovery strategy against COVID-19
pandemic. Tourism Recreation Research, https://doi.org/10.
1080/02508281.2020.1805933
Yi, J., Yuan, G., & Yoo, C. (2020). The effect of the perceived risk
on the adoption of the sharing economy in the tourism
industry: The case of Airbnb. Information Processing and
Management, 57(1), 102108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.
2019.102108
Yuki, K., Fujiogi, M., & Koutsogiannaki, S. (2020). COVID-19
pathophysiology: A review. Clinical Immunology, 215(2020),
108427. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clim.2020.108427
16 S. S. DAS AND A. K. TIWARI

Appendices
Appendix 1. Questionnaire for domestic travellers

Construct Questions
Attitude 1 = Strongly disagree, 7 = Strongly agree
1 I think that travelling during COVID-19 is positive
2 I think that travelling during COVID-19 is useful
3 I think that travelling during COVID-19 is valuable
4 I think that travelling during COVID-19 is dynamic
5 I think that travelling during COVID-19 is attractive
6 I think that travelling during COVID-19 is delightful

Subjective norm 1 = Strongly disagree, 7 = Strongly agree

1 Most people who are important to me think it is okay for me to travel during COVID-19
2 Most people who are important to me support me travelling during COVID-19
3 Most people who are important to me understand my travel during COVID-19
4 Most people who are important to me agree with me about traveling during COVID-19

Perceived behavioural control 1 = Strongly disagree, 7 = Strongly agree

1 I am capable of travelling during COVID-19
2 I am confident that if I want, I can travel during COVID-19
3 I have enough resources (money) to travel during COVID-19
4 I have enough time to travel during COVID-19
5 Whether or not I travel during COVID-19 is completely up to me
Willingness to adopt PNPIs 1 = Strongly disagree, 7 = Strongly agree
1 I am willing to use face mask while travelling during COVID-19
2 I am willing to wash my hands frequently while travelling during COVID-19
3 I am willing to restrain from touching my eyes, nose and mouth while travelling during COVID-19
4 I am willing to use tissue to cover my mouth and nose while coughing or sneezing while travelling during COVID-19
5 I am willing to cough and sneeze into my elbow in the absence of a tissue while travelling during COVID-19
6 I am willing to keep away from those who have the symptoms of COVID-19 while travelling
7 I am willing to carefully keep an eye on my health condition after travelling during COVID-19

Desire 1 = Strongly disagree, 7 = Strongly agree

Travel intention
Perceived severity of COVID-19
Positive anticipated emotion
Negative anticipated emotion
Frequency of past travel
1 I want to travel during COVID-19 in the near future
2 I wish to travel during COVID-19 in the near future
3 I am eager to travel during COVID-19 in the near future
4 My wish to travel during COVID-19 in the near future can be described desirably
1 = Strongly disagree, 7 = Strongly agree
1 I intend to travel during COVID-19 in the near future
2 I am planning to travel during COVID-19 in the near future
3 I will make an effort to travel during COVID-19 in the near future
4 I will certainly invest time and money to travel during COVID-19 in the near future
1 = Not severe at all, 7 = Very severe
1 The infection rate of COVID-19 can be
2 The morbidity of COVID-19 can be
3 The death rate of COVID-19 can be
4 The negative impact of COVID-19 on social order can be
5 The negative impact of COVID-19 on Indian economy can be
1 = Not at all, 7 = Very much
1 If I succeed in achieving my goal of travelling during COVID-19, I will be excited
2 If I succeed in achieving my goal of travelling during COVID-19, I will be glad
3 If I succeed in achieving my goal of travelling during COVID-19, I will be satisfied.
4 If I succeed in achieving my goal of travelling during COVID-19, I will be happy.
1 = Not at all, 7 = Very much
1 If I fail in achieving my goal of travelling during COVID-19, I will be angry
2 If I fail in achieving my goal of travelling during COVID-19, I will be disappointed
3 If I fail in achieving my goal of travelling during COVID-19, I will be worried
4 If I fail in achieving my goal of travelling during COVID-19, I will be sad
1 How many times have you travelled to other states within the country during the Nipah virus outbreak in 2018?

Appendix 2. Questionnaire for international travellers

Constructs Questions
Attitude 1 = Strongly disagree, 7 = Strongly agree
1 I think that travelling internationally is positive
2 I think that travelling internationally is useful
3 I think that travelling internationally is valuable
4 I think that travelling internationally is dynamic
5 I think that travelling internationally is attractive
6 I think that travelling internationally is delightful
 TOURISM RECREATION RESEARCH 17

Subjective norm 1 = Strongly disagree, 7 = Strongly agree

1 Most people who are important to me think it is okay for me to travel internationally
2 Most people who are important to me support that I travel internationally
3 Most people who are important to me understand that I travel internationally
4 Most people who are important to me agree with me about traveling internationally

Perceived behavioral control 1 = Strongly disagree, 7 = Strongly agree

1 I am capable of travelling internationally
2 I am confident that if I want, I can travel internationally
3 I have enough resources (money) to travel internationally
4 I have enough time to travel internationally
5 Whether or not I travel internationally is completely up to me
Willingness to adopt PNPIs 1 = Strongly disagree, 7 = Strongly agree
1 I am willing to use face mask while travelling internationally
2 I am willing to wash my hands frequently while travelling internationally
3 I am willing to restrain from touching my eyes, nose and mouth while travelling
4 I am willing to use tissue to cover my mouth and nose while coughing or sneezing
5 I am willing to cough and sneeze into my elbow in the absence of a tissue
6 I am willing to keep away from those who have the symptoms of COVID-19 while travelling internationally
7 I am willing to carefully keep an eye on my health condition after travelling internationally
Desire 1 = Strongly disagree, 7 = Strongly agree
1 I want to travel internationally in the near future
2 I wish to travel internationally in the near future
3 I am eager to travel internationally in the near future
4 My wish to travel internationally in the near future can be described desirably

Travel intention 1 = Strongly disagree, 7 = Strongly agree

1 I intend to travel internationally in the near future
2 I am planning to travel internationally in the near future
3 I will make an effort to travel internationally in the near future
4 I will certainly invest time and money to travel internationally in the near future
Perceived severity of COVID-19 1 = Not severe at all, 7 = Very severe
1 The infection rate of COVID-19 can be
2 The morbidity of COVID-19 can be
3 The death rate of COVID-19 can be
4 The negative impact of COVID-19 on social order can be
5 The negative impact of COVID-19 on Indian economy can be
Positive anticipated emotion 1 = Not at all, 7 = Very much
1 If I succeed in achieving my goal of travelling internationally, I will be excited
2 If I succeed in achieving my goal of travelling internationally, I will be glad
3 If I succeed in achieving my goal of travelling internationally, I will be satisfied
4 If I succeed in achieving my goal of travelling internationally, I will be happy

Negative anticipated emotion 1 = Not at all, 7 = Very much

1 If I fail in achieving my goal of travelling internationally, I will be angry
2 If I fail in achieving my goal of travelling internationally, I will be disappointed
3 If I fail in achieving my goal of travelling internationally, I will be worried
4 If I fail in achieving my goal of travelling internationally, I will be sad

Frequency of past travel 1 How many times have you travelled abroad during the H1N1 pandemic 2009 or the 2014–2016 Ebola outbreak?