JOURNAL OF RISK RESEARCH

2019, VOL. 22, NO. 7, 844–864

https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2017.1422784

Public’s perceived overcrowding risk and their adoption of

precautionary actions: a study of holiday travel in China
Shanshan Lu and Jiuchang Wei
School of Management, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, P.R. China

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

The importance of travel risk has been recognized, but only a limited number Received 10 April 2017
of studies have been conducted on this risk and the precautionary actions Accepted 23 October 2017
the public may take to manage it during holidays. This study applied the
KEYWORDS
protective action decision model and the protection motivation theory to Overcrowding risk; holiday
examine the public’s intent to take precautionary actions during holiday travel; precautionary action;
times to handle the risk of overcrowding in China. Our survey showed efficacy-related attributes;
that efficacy-related attributes of precautionary actions were positively resource-related attributes;
correlated, whereas resource-related attributes were negatively correlated, China
with the intention to take precautionary measures. Risk perception also
significantly influenced the adoption intention, but the amount of variance
in the intention to adopt precautionary actions that was motivated by
risk perception was lower than that related to efficacy-related attributes.
In addition, we found that risk perception mediated the influence of past
overcrowding experiences on people’s intention to adopt precautionary
measures. Travel frequency, length of time spent away for the holiday,
and the number of underage family members involved were significantly
correlated with the intention to adopt precautionary actions. Finally,
this paper discussed suggestions and implications for travelers, tourist
departments, and related stakeholders.

1. Introduction
Travel has become a necessary part of daily life, especially during holidays. As reported by the World
Tourism Organization, tourism has becoming one of the largest and fastest growing industries in the
world, accounting for roughly 9% of the world’s total GDP (World Tourism Organization UNWTO 2014).
The global tourism industry has demonstrated sharp growth since the middle of the last century. The
UNWTO Tourism Highlights 2015 Edition states that the average annual revenue of destination countries
generated by international tourism during the 1980s and 1990s grew faster than revenue from com-
mercial services and export of goods from a global perspective. The growth of the tourism industry has
been significant in several emerging countries. According to the statistics of the China National Tourism
Administration (CNTA), the total number of domestic tourists in China reached 3.63 billion in 2014; in
other words, an average of 9.94 million1 tourists traveled each day in 2014. Domestic tourism refers
to the permanent residents of a given country traveling to another place in that country for tourism.
The travel may comprise guided tours or unorganized tours, and any level of number of travelers and
travel distance. According to Wen (1997), China’s domestic tourism is the ‘sector of the country’s tourism

CONTACT Jiuchang Wei Weijc@ustc.edu.cn

© 2018 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
 JOURNAL OF RISK RESEARCH 845

industry which consists of Chinese citizens traveling within China’ (p. 565). CNTA declared that during
the most recent National Day ‘Golden Week’ (1 October to 7 October 2015), the number of domestic
tourists reached 526 million, which contributed an income of ¥421.3 billion ($63.11 billion) to local
Chinese economies. Despite various security measures taken in different locations, human-induced risk
associated with tourism is unavoidable because of several external factors (Mansfeld 2006). During the
past ‘Golden Week,’ complaints from dissatisfied tourists were higher than before: 534 cases of tourist
complaints were reported, including tour guide service quality, traffic, overcrowding, forced shopping,
and so on (China National Tourism Administration 2015).
As demonstrated by Giddens (1991), risk is becoming an increasingly important factor in modern
society. Beck (1992) suggested that the way in which society perceives risk is directly related to its
understanding of tourism practices. Recent research has found that the public’s perceptions of safety
and risk can influence travel decisions (Pearce 1988; Mawby 2000; George 2003). According to Pizam,
Tarlow, and Bloom (1997), people choose their holiday destinations based on price and destination, and
more importantly on perceived personal security. With the government’s policy of encouraging tourism,
congestion has become a significant problem during official holidays (Yang et al. 2015). However, little
research has explored the risk perception of tourists (Lepp and Gibson 2003), particularly with regard
to overcrowding risk. The negative influence of tourist attractions is widely recognized to be correlated
with carrying capacity: ‘the level of affluence at which the destination appeal significantly decreases and
the tourist flow starts to decline’ (Santana-Jiménez and Hernández 2011, 422). Overcrowding perception
is complex, as it is influenced by user conflict as well as by unwanted visitor behavior and resource con-
ditions (Wasantha Rathnayake 2015). According to Pigram and Jenkins (1999), Needham, Rollins, and
Wood (2004), visitor crowding exerts both social and ecological effects on outdoor recreation. Since 1
January 2008, new measures have been devised for ‘Having a holiday for National Annual Leaves and
Memorial Days.’ May Day, National Day, and other official holidays have become peak travel times for
citizens of China. During these days, well-known scenic spots are crowded with people to the point that
serious accidents sometimes occur. For example, at Jiuzhaigou Valley National Park (a World Natural
Heritage scenic spot in southwest China), 4000 tourists were stranded for five hours due to overcrowd-
ing during the 2013 National Day. Another example is the Shanghai ‘12.31’ stampede incident of 2014.
Studies have established that tourists’ perceptions of a destination significantly affect their desti-
nation choice, decision-making, and behavior (Baloglu and McCleary 1999; Gallarza, Saura, and Garcı́a
2002). Natural disaster risks that affect the tourism industry include typhoons, floods, and earthquakes.
(Eitzinger and Wiedemann 2007). Social cognition approaches have been widely used to analyze the
determinants of risky behavior (Parker, Manstead, and Stradling 1995; Rutter, Quine, and Chesham
1995; Parker, Lajunen, and Stradling 1998). Travel is a discretionary activity that is usually pre-planned
and in general, tourists will not travel to an insecure destination (Brunt and Shepard 2004; Nkosi 2010).
The protection motivation theory (Rogers and Prentice-Dunn 1997) has been applied to examine why
attitude and behavior can alter people’s perception when they are confronted with threats. Lindell
and Perry’s protective action decision model theory (Lindell and Perry 1992, 2004) is ‘an important
framework for explaining people’s responses to threatening events, such as, environmental hazards
and disasters’ (Wei et al. 2015, 115). Consumers are apt to adopt measures that reduce risks when
they purchase a product or service (Adam 2015). Reducing uncertainty or an unsatisfactory purchase
decision is called risk reduction (Mitchell et al. 1999). As for travel, there are two kinds of risk reduction
strategies: consumption behavior modification and information searching (Hales and Shams 1991).
The protective action decision model (PADM) and the protection motivation theory (PMT) may be
useful in understanding, explaining, and predicting public attitudes toward risk and precautionary
actions (Zhao et al. 2015). The revised PADM can better explain the public’s decision-making process in
risky situations (Wei et al. 2015). The purpose of our study is threefold. First, we attempt to predict the
efficacy-related and resource-related attributes of precautionary actions by applying PADM and PMT
to overcrowding risk prevention in tourist destinations. The goal is to better explain the relationship
between risk perception, action attributes, and the precautionary action intention of the public during
holiday travel. Second, we focus on the public’s perception of overcrowding risk and its influence on
846 S. LU AND J. WEI

the intention to adopt precautionary actions. Third, our research aims to provide tourism stakeholders
with suggestions for ways to build a more satisfactory and effective holiday travel system.
We structured this as follows: Section 2 presents an overview of the theoretical background and
hypotheses considered in this study. Section 3 describes the study methods and measurements. Section
4 provides an analysis and results of our regression models. In Section 5, we discuss our research con-
clusions in detail. Finally, the theoretical and managerial implications, limitations, and future research
directions are expounded.

2. Literature review and hypotheses

2.1. Holiday travel and overcrowding
Understanding why people behave the way they do, including on vacation, is a complex endeavor.
Tourist motivations have been widely studied in past decades (Crompton 1979; Bansal and Eiselt 2004),
and they are often viewed as internal factors that directly influence an individual’s decision to par-
ticipate in tourism (Iso-Ahola 1980). According to Iso-Ahola (1982), motivation can be classified into
seeking and avoiding dimensions. Seasonality has been shown to have a great influence on tourism. In
economic terms, seasonality refers to the systematic movement of a variable during a designated time
period, usually a year (Hylleberg 1992). Individual preference for peak seasons can also be influenced
by fashion trends, personal preferences, and love for tradition. The social costs of tourism’s seasonality
may involve damage to tourist attractions (caused by, e.g. traffic management, water supply, and waste
disposal). Therefore, during peak tourism seasons, tourist congestion may cause dissatisfaction for local
residents and tourists (Parrilla, Font, and Nadal 2006). Tourism may also have a negative impact on local
communities, such as increased prices, traffic congestion, and increased crime (Ko and Stewart 2002;
Deery, Jago, and Fredline 2012; Látková and Vogt 2012). Numerous studies have revealed that tourist
disappointment and displeasure mainly stem from overcrowding and environmental problems at their
destinations (Saveriades 2000; Alexandros and Jaffry 2005; Needham and Rollins 2005; Law and Cheung
2007). Much literature has discussed carrying capacity (Lindberg, McCool, and Stankey 1997; McElroy
and de Albuquerque 1998; Buckley 1999; Saarinen 2006). Social carrying capacity (SCC) is also a widely
used concept for measuring visitor satisfaction. According to Beaumont (1997), visitor satisfaction levels
decrease as the number of visitors increase at a particular tourist site.

2.2. PMT and the PADM theory

Protective actions were first defined by Burton, Kates, and White (1993) as those ‘which aim to decrease
the risk caused by extreme events derived from the natural or social environment.’ Protection Motivation
Theory (PMT) was initially developed to explain the effects of fear on health attitudes and behavior
(Rogers 1975). Many previous studies have revealed that people’s coping appraisals are determined by
three attributes – their belief that a precautionary action can effectively reduce a threat (response-effi-
cacy), the belief that they can perform the action (self-efficacy), and the perceived cost of performing
the action (response costs) (Floyd, Prentice-Dunn, and Rogers 2000). PMT has been widely applied to
situations ranging from injury prevention to political conflicts, environmental issues, and the protection
of individuals. The Protective Action Decision Model (PADM) developed by Lindell and Perry (1992, 2004)
helps explain public-protective action intentions in threatening situations. Lindell and Perry’s PADM
theory (Lindell and Perry 1992, 2004, 2012) provides a crucial theoretical basis for explaining people’s
reactions to risks. Although the PADM was first developed to illustrate public responses to environmental
hazards rather than to tourism threats, people’s decision-making processes when facing different risks
are almost the same (Zhu, Wei, and Zhao 2016). They follow a basic logical flow from risk information
receipt, to risk perception, to risk-response behavior (Lindell and Hwang 2008).
In the modified protective action decision model (PADM) framework, Lindell and Perry (2012) utilized
a detailed set of variables to define efficacy-related attributes and resource-related attributes. Recent
 JOURNAL OF RISK RESEARCH 847

studies have found that efficacy-related attributes play a more important role than resource-related
attributes in risk situations (Lindell and Whitney 2000; Lindell and Prater 2002; Lindell, Arlikatti, and Prater
2009). In deciding whether to adopt a recommended coping action, one must believe that performing
the action would prevent the danger and that he/she has the ability to perform it; these considerations
must outweigh the cost of the action (e.g. time, money, cooperation) (Floyd, Prentice-Dunn, and Rogers
2000). The typical dependent variables in PMT and PADM studies are action intentions, for intentions
can reflect the effectiveness of persuasion (Rogers and Prentice-Dunn 1997). Therefore, the following
is hypothesized:
Hypothesis 1a (H1a). In a situation of holiday travel overcrowding risk, the efficacy-related attributes of precaution-
ary actions are positively correlated, whereas the resource-related attributes are negatively correlated, with the
intention to adopt a given precautionary action.

Hypothesis 1b (H1b). Efficacy-related attributes are more strongly correlated with the intention to adopt a precau-
tionary action than resource-related attributes.

2.3. Travel risk and risk experience

In contrast to the practice of reducing risk in everyday life, the prevalence of risk-taking seems to increase
during the pursuit of leisure. Traveling exposes people to different risk situations (Page, Bentley, and
Meyer 2003; Bentley and Page 2006). Risk posed to tourists from natural catastrophes has increased,
including earthquakes, typhoons, floods, and so on (Eitzinger and Wiedemann 2007). Even though
holiday makers usually expose themselves to risks by going to unfamiliar places or participating in
dangerous activities, their travel purpose is to satisfy their needs while keeping safe. Beirman (2003)
pointed out that a traveler’s perceptions of the safety of a location determine their travel decision.
Risk perception refers to people’s feelings about the overall adverse impacts of an action that falls
outside their acceptable level (Mansfeld 2006; Reichel, Fuchs, and Uriely 2007). The importance of risk
perception in tourism has been recognized by Beirman (2003), who emphasized that the popularity of
a travel destination depends chiefly on tourists’ perceptions of risk and safety.
Dowling and Staelin (1994) suggested that many factors can affect tourists’ risk perception, such as
knowledge, risk tolerance, and risk preference. Sonmez and Graefe (1998) found that tourists’ travel expe-
riences correlated with perceived risk and affected their destination choice and their travel behavior.
Fuchs and Reichel (2011) found that first time visitors differ from repeat visitors in their risk perception.
Moreover, an individual’s travel experience influences his or her future travel behavior (Gitelson and
Kerstetter 1992). Lepp and Gibson (2003) found that experienced and inexperienced international
travelers have significantly different perceptions of risk. In addition, Lam and Hsu (2005) found that
past experience plays a vital role in a traveler’s destination choice. The correlation between risk experi-
ence and protective actions has been proven against the background of disaster and natural hazards
(Lindell and Prater 2000; Ge, Peacock, and Lindell 2011; Harries and Penning-Rowsell 2011). Thus, we
posit the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 2 (H2). Past overcrowding experience is positively correlated with the intention to adopt precautionary
action, whereas risk perception plays a mediating effect.

2.4. Risk perception and response efficacy

According to Lindell and Perry (2012), risk perception is a fundamental factor that influences people’s
reactions to threatening events. As a significant predictor, risk perception affects the adjustments of
an individual’s behavioral reactions to various risks and precautionary behavior (Terpstra, Lindell, and
Gutteling 2009). Given that making a wrong travel decision can be considered as a risk (Fuchs and Reichel
2006), when customers feel there is a high possibility of risk, they may change their plans and behav-
ior, for example, by cancelling a booking, evacuating from the destination, or otherwise responding
848 S. LU AND J. WEI

actively (Maser and Weiermair 1998; Sasso 2005; Mansfeld 2006). Reisinger and Mavondo (2005) also
demonstrated that perceived risk can influence tourist behavior and destination choice.
PMT and subjective expected utility (SEU) theory agree that the protective motivation derives from
perceived threats and the hope of preventing any possible negative effects. Response efficacy is ‘the
belief that the adaptive response will work – that making the protective action will be effective in
protecting against the risk’ (Floyd, Prentice-Dunn, and Rogers 2000, 411). Fishbein and Ajzen (1975)
have suggested that one’s attitude toward an act (adopting a hazard adjustment) is more indicative of
behavior than one’s attitude toward an object (hazard). Flood hazard adjustment research also supports
this viewpoint, which found that compared with threat appraisal (perceived risk), coping appraisal
(which includes response efficacy, self-efficacy, and response costs) exhibits higher correlations with
the adoption of flood mitigation measures (Grothmann and Reusswig 2006). Therefore, we speculate
that efficacy-related attributes, rather than risk perception, will be the most important indicator of the
precautionary action adoption intention.
Hypothesis 3a (H3a). Overcrowding risk perception is positively correlated to the intention to adopt a precautionary
action.

Hypothesis 3b (H3b). The efficacy-related attributes play a more important role than risk perception in explaining
the intention to adopt a precautionary action.

2.5. Travel-specific attributes

Tourists travel for internal and external motivations (McGehee, Loker-Murphy, and Uysal 1996).
Santana-Jiménez and Hernández (2011) found that the effect of destination overcrowding can vary
depending on the tourist’s origin. Leiper (1995) stated that ‘different tourists perceive the same desti-
nation in different ways, and a very important variable for such phenomenon is the time period tourists
spent in that destination.’ Peypoch and Solonandrasana (2007) confirmed that tourists would like to
stay longer if an attraction can satisfy them for a certain period. From a psychological perspective,
tourists are generally motivated to break from their routine life and search for distinctive experiences
(MacCannell 1977). Personality characteristics have also been found to affect travel behavior (Panos
1992). Previous studies have revealed that personality traits have greater influence on travel behavior
than has been credited, given their different travel styles and preferences (Madrigal 1995; Jackson,
White, and White 2001; Plog 2002). Earlier studies (Mokhtarian, Salomon, and Redmond (2001) stated
that with all else being equal, higher adventure seekers tend to travel longer distances than their
counterparts. Considering the influence of different travel behaviors and characteristics, we predict
the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 4 (H4). Travel frequency (positive correlation) and dwelling time (negative correlation) are positively
related to the precautionary action adoption intention.

2.6. Demographic characteristics

Previous works have reported that a number of demographic variables are significantly associated
with risk perception (Lindell and Prater 2002; Fothergill and Peek 2004) and risk adjustments (Lindell,
Arlikatti, and Prater 2009). Gallarza and Gil Saura (2006) found that risk perception is typically less
obvious for a young population during the journey. Hildebrand (2003) proved that travel behaviors
are significantly affected by lifestyle patterns. A substantial amount of the literature has revealed the
relationship between tourism-related decisions and the family life cycle (Zimmermann 1982; Lawson
1991; Romsa and Blenman 1989; Bojanic 1992; Wilson and Tisdell 2001). On this basis, we formulate
our last hypothesis:
Hypothesis 5 (H5). Demographic variables such as age (positive correlation) and the number of underage family
members on the journey (positive correlation) are positively related to the precautionary action adoption intention.
 JOURNAL OF RISK RESEARCH 849

We use SPSS 22.0 to perform hierarchical and linear regressions to test the proposed hypotheses. The
protective action decision model applied to holiday scenic overcrowding and our hypothesis framework
is presented in Figure 1. The regression models and results are presented in the succeeding section.

3. Methods and analysis

3.1. Sample and data collection
We designed a three-page questionnaire to collect data between 15 April and 30 June 2015. The ques-
tionnaire surveys were sent during International Labor Day (May 1st), one of the peak tourist seasons
in China, so the public’s impressions about the tourism experience and perceptions of overcrowding
were fresh. First, background information was introduced about overcrowding safety accidents in scenic
spots during the holidays. Detailed explanations were presented for the statements in the question-
naires to make them easily understood. A small gift was given after participants completed the survey.
Our questionnaire was written in Chinese. After several sample pretests, we issued the questionnaires
before and after the May Day (from 15 April to 30 June), so that the public would have a strong conscious-
ness as regards our survey. The samples were collected in Hefei, the capital of Anhui Province, which is a
famous tourism city in central China (Figure 2). Anhui Province has abundant tourist resources with many
beautiful landscapes, places of historic interest, and rich folk customs. The most famous scenic wonders
include Mount Huangshan, Mount Jiuhua, Mount Tianzhu, Mount Langya, and Mount Qiyun, which
are all national scenic spots. Other tourist attractions are the Xin’an River, Taiping Lake, and the Water
Park on Chaohu Lake. In 1990, UNESCO added Mt. Huangshan to its list of World Cultural and Natural
Heritages. In 2000, Xidi and Hongcun were listed as World Cultural Heritage spots as well (Anhui Travel
2016). In addition to the abundant tourism resources, in recent years, Anhui Province has witnessed the
rapid development of its transportation infrastructure. Travelers now have easier access into and out
of the province through different means of transportation, such as by plane, train, bus, and private car.
Hefei, the capital city of Anhui province, is located between the Yangtze River and the Huaihe River,
beside Chaohu Lake. It is close to coastal cities in eastern China. Hefei is located in the center of China,
where the southern and northern parts of the country converge, and traffic leads to the east and west.
As an important transport hub and economic center, a large number of visitors, starting from Hefei,
flock to the scenic spots inside and outside of Anhui province during the holidays. Our sample selection
is thus strongly representative and has typicality.

Figure 1. The protective action decision model applied to holiday scenic overcrowding precautionary action adoption in China.
850 S. LU AND J. WEI

Figure 2. The investigation location of the study (map of China and Anhui province).

As such, the respondents were adequately familiar with our questionnaire. A self-administered ques-
tionnaire was distributed only to those who agreed to respond to the survey. According to a previous
study, our survey contained translated questionnaire items, response scales, and coding of all variables
(Terpstra and Lindell 2013). The respondents were asked to complete a questionnaire with continuous
questions for assessing their perception of overcrowding risk, the efficacy-related attributes of precau-
tionary actions, the resource-related attributes of precautionary actions, and the intention of adopting
precautionary actions. The responders were asked to answer questions on a 1 (not at all) to 5 (a very
large extent) scale. The Cronbach’s alpha for the six risk perception items was 0.81, which shows a high
internal consistency. The description of questionnaire measurements is shown below. An Internet-
based (Sojump, a professional online questionnaire survey platform in China) survey and an on-site
questionnaire survey were performed simultaneously. We collected a total of 377 questionnaires (110
online questionnaires and 267 printed ones). The response rate was high, 67 invalid questionnaires
were removed (23 on line questionnaires and 44 printed ones), and a total of 310 valid questionnaires
were included in our study.

3.2. Measurement
Perception of overcrowding risk is measured by six items, namely: ‘Scenic spots crowding risk may harm
my health’; ‘Scenic spots crowding may harm my mental health and emotion’; ‘Scenic spots crowding
may harm my satisfaction with the scenic spot’; ‘Scenic spots crowding may harm to my travel expenses’;
‘Scenic spots crowding may harm the natural and human landscape’; ‘Scenic spots crowding may harm
the social order of the scenic spot’.
The efficacy-related attributes (EA) of the precautionary actions were measured by asking the
responders to rate the extent from 1 (disagree completely) to 5 (extremely agree) about the five pre-
cautionary actions. For example, respondents were asked: ‘Go to some less popular spots for holiday
travel, I can satisfy my travel desire and needs’; ‘Go to some less popular spots for holiday travel, I can
enjoy a good holiday with relatives and friends’; ‘Go to some less popular spots for holiday travel, I can
relax body and mind’, etc.
Similarly, the resource-related attributes (RA) were measured by asking the responders to rate the
extent of agreement with the five precautionary actions from 1 (disagree completely) to 5 (extremely
agree). For example, respondents were asked: ‘Go to some less popular spots for holiday travel, takes
me a lot of money’; ‘Go to some less popular spots for holiday travel, takes me a large amount of time
and energy’; ‘Go to some less popular spots for holiday travel, I need to communicate with others and
get their cooperation’, etc.
 JOURNAL OF RISK RESEARCH 851

The intention of adopting precautionary actions (PA) was measured by asking responders the pos-
sibility of accepting the five precautionary actions regarding scenic spot overcrowding; namely, would
they go to some less popular spots for holiday travel; take some paid annual vacation trips, avoid the
peak tourism times; make advance reservations for scenic spot tickets and hotels; focus on the scenic
spots’ online platforms, make real-time adjustments; and use public transportation to reduce traffic
congestion. For the reliability of measuring the precautionary action adoption intention, Cronbach’s
α = 0.71.
Furthermore, travel-specific questions were asked, and travel risk preference was measured by ask-
ing responders whether they were risk-averse (less than 50% likely to take a risky trip), risk-neutral, or
risk lovers (more than 50% likely to take a risky trip) during holiday travel; the annual travel frequency
and the dwelling time in the scenic spots were also queried. The experience of overcrowding in scenic
spots was measured by asking responders whether they or their household members had experienced
overcrowding during holiday travel. Several demographic characteristics, namely age, gender, marital
status, education, the number of under aged children in the family, and household annual income,
were also recorded.
The construction and items included in the questionnaires are presented in Table 1 (the scenario of
our questionnaires is given in the Appendix 1).

4. Analysis and results

To test our research hypotheses, regression analyses were run using SPSS 22.0. We first calculated
the mean across the efficacy/resource-related attributes and the adoption intentions of the five

Table 1. Constructs and items included in the questionnaire (translated from Chinese).

Construct Item Measurement (questionnaire) References

Overcrowding risk perception (ORP) ORP1 Scenic spots overcrowding risk Kellens, Zaalberg, and De Maeyer
harm to my health (2012), Terpstra and Lindell
ORP2 Overcrowding harm to my mental (2013)
health and emotion
ORP3 Overcrowding harm to my satis-
faction of the scenic spot
ORP4 Overcrowding harm to my travel
expenses
ORP5 Overcrowding harm to natural
and human landscape
ORP6 Overcrowding harm to social
order of the scenic spot
Precautionary Action (PA) PA1 Go to some less popular spots for Suggested by tourism experts
holiday travel from the website of the Nation-
PA2 Take some paid annual vacation al Tourism Administration
trip, avoid the peak
PA3 Make advance reservation of the
scenic spot tickets and hotel
PA4 Focus on online platform makes
real-time adjustment
PA5 Use public transportation, reduce
traffic congestion
Efficacy-related attributes (EA) Satisfaction (With Precautionary Action)I can Lindell and Perry (2012)
satisfy my travel desire and
needs
Enjoyment I can enjoy a good holiday with
relatives and friends
Relax I can relax body and mind
Resource-related attributes (RA) Money (Precautionary Action) takes me a Lindell and Perry (2012)
lot of money
Time Takes me a lot of time and energy
Cooperation I need to communicate with
others and cooperation
852 S. LU AND J. WEI

precautionary actions separately. The results showed a good internal consistency, with the Cronbach’s
alpha ranging from 0.71 to 0.81 (Table 3). The descriptive statistics and correlations of all variables are
listed in Table 4. Given the high correlation among the variables, further analysis was conducted. We
tested the effects of efficacy-related and resource-related attributes (H1a, H1b), risk perception (H2,
H3), travel-specific attributes (H4), and demographic variables (H5) on the intention to adopt precau-
tionary actions by adding these variables to the regression model step by step (Table 5, Step 1: only
efficacy-related attributes; Step 2: efficacy-related attributes together with resource-related attributes;
Step 3: together with risk perception, travel-specific attributes, and demographic variables).

4.1. Demographic data of the participants

Table 2 presents demographic characteristics of the respondents. Age was assessed using the categories
of 1 = less than 20 years old, 2 = 21–30 years old, 3 = 31–40 years old, 4 = 41–50 years old, 5 = more
than 50 years old. The highest level of education was measured with the categories of 1 = junior high
school, 2 = senior high school, 3 = junior college, 4 = undergraduate, and 5 = postgraduate. The number
of males (51.9%) and females (48.1%) was almost the same in our sample. Most of the respondents fell
into the age groups of 21–30 years old (61.6%) and 31–40 years (28.1%), indicating that the participants
were relatively young. The education level of the participants was considerably high; almost half (49.3%)
of the respondents had university degrees and 43.6% had postgraduate college degrees. As for the
family member age structure, more than half (53.9%) of the sample showed no under aged children
(less than 18 years old) in the family, while 46.1% reported there was at least one under aged child in
the family. With respect to travel risk preference, the majority of participants were risk-averse (63.9%),
while 22.6% were risk-neutral and only 13.5% were risk seekers.

4.2. Descriptive statistics and correlations

The descriptive statistics and correlations of all variables are displayed in Table 3 and Table 4. The means,
medians, and standard deviations of all the variables are reported in Table 3. The results show that the
perception of overcrowding risk was well above the midpoint of the scale range (3.92 on a scale from
1 to 5) and the variation in respondents’ adopting intentions of overcrowding precautionary measures
was low (3.33 would take public transportation and 3.75 would make advance reservations on a scale
from 1 to 5). The levels of satisfaction (M = 4.83), enjoyment (M = 4.02), and relaxation (M = 3.99) were
also higher than the midpoint of the scale. Going to less-popular scenic spots, taking a paid annual
vacation trip (avoiding the travel peaks), and making advance reservations were rated with high efficacy

Table 2. Demographic data of the participants (n = 310).

Variables Characteristic N %
Gender Male 161 51.9
Female 149 48.1
Age Under 20 13 4.2
21–30 191 61.6
31–40 87 28.1
41–50 19 6.1
Highest degree Senior high school 9 2.9
Junior college 13 4.2
Undergraduate 153 49.3
Postgraduate 135 43.6
The number of underaged 0 167 53.9
1 113 36.4
2 23 7.4
3 7 2.3
Risk preference Risk aversion 198 63.9
Risk neutral 70 22.6
Risk lover 42 13.5
 JOURNAL OF RISK RESEARCH 853

Table 3. Attribute standard deviations on the five crowded precautionary adjustments.

Less popular Paid annual Advance Real-time Public

spots vacation trip reservation attention transportation
Variable M Md SD M Md SD M Md SD M Md SD M Md SD Alpha
Adoption 3.59 4.0 1.03 3.74 4.0 1.18 3.75 4.0 1.07 3.43 3.0 1.04 3.33 3.0 1.09 0.71
intention
Satisfaction 4.83 5.0 0.56 4.31 5.0 0.88 3.93 4.0 0.94 3.74 4.0 0.97 3.69 4.0 1.11 0.74
Enjoyment 4.02 4.0 0.93 4.13 4.0 0.99 3.92 4.0 0.93 3.82 4.0 0.94 3.55 4.0 1.07 0.72
Relax 3.99 4.0 0.96 4.25 4.0 0.87 3.91 4.0 0.93 3.78 4.0 0.97 3.63 4.0 1.02 0.74
Money 2.44 2.0 1.02 2.73 3.0 1.16 2.71 3.0 1.09 2.85 3.0 1.07 2.66 3.0 1.15 0.80
Time 2.80 3.0 1.16 3.02 3.0 1.13 3.07 3.0 0.44 3.42 3.2 1.11 3.21 3.0 1.25 0.74
Cooperation 3.22 3.0 1.13 3.37 3.0 1.13 3.36 3.0 1.06 3.43 3.0 1.10 3.35 3.0 1.10 0.76
Overcrowd- 0.81
ing risk
percep-
tion
Gender 0.51 1.0 0.50
Age 2.36 2.0 0.64
Travel fre- 2.51 2.0 2.52
quency
Dwell time 2.96 3.0 0.96
Overcrowd- 3.99 4.0 1.05
ing experi-
ence
Risk prefer- 2.35 2.0 0.98
ence
The number 0.60 0.0 0.79
of under
aged
Notes: M = Mean, Md = Median, SD = Standard Deviation of all the variables.

(Satisfactory, Enjoyment, Relax) as remedies for avoiding holiday travel overcrowding. None of the five
precautionary actions were rated high in cost, time, or requirements for cooperation and effort.
According to Table 4, there are significant associations among key variables (efficacy/resource-related
variables, risk perception, and adoption intention). The correlations between precautionary action adop-
tion intentions and the three efficacy-related attributes (for satisfactory, r = 0.502, p < 0.001; enjoyment,
r = 0.475, p < 0.001; relax, r = 0.519, p < 0.001) were quite high. There was also a high correlation between
perception of overcrowding risk and precautionary action adoption intention (r = 0.251, p < 0.001).
Given the high correlation between the constructs, there is a need for further analysis.

4.3. Results of hypotheses testing

As indicated in Table 5, the standardized regression coefficients (Table 5, Step 1) for satisfactory (β = 0.098,
0.000 < p < 0.05), enjoyment (β = 0109, 0.001 < p < 0.05), and relaxation (β = 0.349, 0.000 < p < 0.05) of
the five precautionary actions were positive and statistically significant. However, there was no statis-
tical significance for the regression coefficients of the resource-related attributes (Table 5, Step 2). The
efficacy-related attributes yielded more significant regression coefficients (80%, Table 5, Step 2) than
the resource-related attributes. Almost all regression coefficients of the efficacy-related attributes (e.g.
relaxation to paid annual vacation trip intention, β = 0.276***) were higher than the negative coefficients
of the resource-related attributes (e.g. monetary cost of taking paid annual vacation trip intention,
β = −0.10*). From the above hierarchical regression analysis results, H1a and H1b were supported; that
is, in conditions of holiday travel overcrowding risk, efficacy-related attributes of precautionary actions
were positively correlated, while resource-related attributes were negatively correlated with precau-
tionary action adoption intention, and the former shows a stronger correlation.
From Table 4 we can see that past overcrowding experiences were positively correlated with risk per-
ception (see Table 4, r = 0.181***). However, Table 5 shows no significant relationship between a previous
 854
S. LU AND J. WEI

Table 4. Correlations between variables.

Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
1. Adoption intention
2. Overcrowding risk perception 0.251***
3. Satisfaction 0.502*** 0.302***
4. Enjoyment 0.475*** 0.330*** 0.711***
5. Relax 0.519*** 0.322*** 0.731*** 0.836***
6. Money −0.147** 0.115* −0.121* −0.008 −0.063
7. Time −0.182** 0.232*** −0.066 0.047 0.021 0.709***
8. Cooperation 0.294*** 0.278*** 0.048 0.080 0.109 0.597*** 0.785***
9. Risk preference −0.038 −0.103* −0.032 −0.060 −0.054 0.044 0.020 0.018
10.Overcrowding experience 0.11* 0.181*** 0.193*** 0.288*** 0.253*** −0.001 0.088 0.007 0.037
11. Travel frequency 0.057 0.05 0.044 0.012 0.004 0.094 0.072 0.072 −0.048 −0.026
12. Dwell time −0.064 0.013 0.046 0.034 0.010 −0.046 −0.144* −0.093 0.14** −0.062 −0.126*
13. Age 0.061 0.05 −0.001 −0.058 −0.057 0.046 −0.07 −0.043 0.128* −0.047 −0.061 0.101
14. Gendera 0.047 0.064 0.051 0.074 0.056 −0.022 −0.015 −0.087 0.088 −0.056 −0.054 0.180** 0.099
15. The number of under aged 0.112* 0.074 0.009 0.053 0.013 −0.023 −0.021 −0.055 0.001 0.029 −0.028 0.053 0.259** 0.053
Notes: +,*,**, and *** mean statistically significant at 10, 5,1, and 0.1% levels, respectively.
‘a’ refers to dummy variable (Male = 1, Female = 0).
Table 5. Hierarchical Regression Analysis of Adoption Intentions, only the Efficacy-related attributes (Step 1), Efficacy-related attributes and the Resource-related attributes (Step 2), add all the travel-spe-
cific variables and the demographic variables (Step 3).

Less popular spots Paid annual vacation trip Advance reservation Real-time attention Public transportation
Predictors Step1 Step2 Step3 Step1 Step2 Step3 Step1 Step2 Step3 Step1 Step2 Step3 Step1 Step2 Step3
Satisfaction 0.098* 0.096* 0.106* 0.165* 0.162* 0.095 0.322*** 0.335*** 0.306*** 0.35*** 0.36*** 0.345*** 0.169** 0.171** 0.224**
Enjoyment 0.109 0.082 0.108 0.103 0.119* 0.093 0.135* 0.149* 0.14* 0.054 0.044 0.076 0.217** 0.232** 0.182*
Relax 0.349*** 0.346* 0.383*** 0.29*** 0.276*** 0.298*** 0.004 0.071 0.052 0.213*** 0.23*** 0.175** 0.151* 0.133* 0.123
Money −0.093 −0.059 −0.10* −0.131* −0.05 −0.050 −0.167** −0.165* −0.089 −0.129*
Time −0.054 −0.006 −0.067 −0.088 −0.021 −0.054 −0.105* −0.11* −0.002 −0.013
Cooperation 0.126* 0.113 0.01 0.06 0.311*** 0.285*** 0.12* 0.134* 0.143* 0.145*
Overcrowd- 0.075* 0.07* 0.063* 0.018+ 0.052*
ing risk
percep-
tion
Travel fre- 0.016 0.118* −0.001 0.011 −0.075
quency
Dwell time 0.082 −0.048 −0.175** −0.027 0.029
Overcrowd- −0.052 0.011 −0.066 0.035 −0.061
ing expe-
rience
Risk prefer- −0.015 −0.005 −0.008 0.032 0.021
ence
Gendera −0.057 0.048 0.080 0.060 0.017
Age 0.107* 0.121* −0.026 0.061 −0.057
Number −0.002 0.103* 0.072 0.082 −0.002
of under
aged
Adjusted R2 0.206 0.226 0.244 0.246 0.253 0.299 0.17 0.282 0.347 0.304 0.340 0.350 0.228 0.265 0.322
Notes: +, *, **, and *** mean statistically significant at 10, 5, 1 and 0.1% levels, respectively.
‘a’ refers to dummy variable (Male = 1, Female = 0).
JOURNAL OF RISK RESEARCH
855
856 S. LU AND J. WEI

overcrowding experience and adoption intention of the five precautionary actions (see Table 5, Step 3).
To further verify our hypothesis, we conducted a mediation effect analysis about risk perception, past
overcrowding experiences, and precautionary action adoption intentions (see Table 6). In Table 6, Model
1, we tested the relationship between predictor (past overcrowding experience) and the dependent
variable (adoption intention). The results show that past overcrowding experiences were significantly
positively related to adoption intentions (β = 0.114*, p < 0.05, Model 1). Next, we tested the relationship
between predictor (past overcrowding experience) and the mediating variable (risk perception) in
Model 2. The regression results show that past overcrowding experiences were significantly positively
related to risk perception (β = 0.196***, p < 0.001, Model 2). We then added both the predictor and the
mediating variable into the final regression model. Model 3 shows that when adding risk perception
into the model, the relationship between past overcrowding experiences and precautionary action
adoption intention become non-significant (β = 0.062, p > 0.05), while risk perception showed a high
correlation with precautionary action adoption intention (β = 0.268***, p < 0.001). Compared with Model
1 (R2 = 0.025), the interpretation of the model with a precautionary action adoption intention variance
rate increased in Model 3 (R2 = 0.088). In other words, risk perception fully mediated the influence of
past overcrowding experiences on precautionary action adoption intention. At this point, hypothesis
H2 was totally supported.
As for hypothesis H3，the correlation between overcrowding risk perception and precautionary
action adoption intention (see Table 4, r = 0.251***) was considerably high. The regression results (see
Table 5, Step 3) showed that risk perception (p < 0.05) predicted the adoption intentions of the five
precautionary adjustments significantly. So, hypothesis H3a was supported. In addition, from Table
5, Step 3 we can see that the coefficients of the three efficacy-related attributes (e.g. satisfactory to
advance reservation intention, β = 0.306***) were larger than the coefficient of risk perception (β = 0.063*).
Another support for hypothesis H3 was that the efficacy-related attributes explained more variance in
precautionary action adoption intentions than did risk perception. That is, for the whole spectrum of
precautionary adjustments intentions, the adjusted R2 of the efficacy-related attributes with adoption
intentions (0.309 ≤ R2 ≤ 0.377, see Table 7, Step 2–5) was greater than the adjusted R2 of risk perception
(R2 = 0.251, see Table 7, Step 1). Therefore, hypothesis H3b was strongly supported.
Hypothesis H4 tested the effects of travel-specific variables on precautionary action adoption
intentions. Apart from the regression results from Table 4, travel frequency was positively related, and
dwell time was negatively related to precautionary action adoption intentions (e.g. travel frequency
to paid annual vacation trip intention, Table 5, step 3, β = 0.118*, p < 0.05; dwell time to advance
reservation intention, Table 5, step 3, β = −0.175**, p < 0.05). The overall regression for adoption inten-
tion also showed that the dwell time was significantly related to adoption intention (see Table 7, Step
5, β = −0.094*, p < 0.05); however, the travel frequency showed no significance. In addition, as for

Table 6. The overcrowding experience influence on adoption intentions and the mediation effect of risk perception.

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

Adoption intention Overcrowding risk perception Adoption intention
Control variable
Gendera 0.062 0.127* 0.028
Age 0.064 0.295*** −0.015
Education 0.076 0.094* 0.050
Predictors
Overcrowding experience 0.114* 0.196*** 0.062
Mediating variable
Overcrowding risk perception 0.268***
R2 0.25 0.31 0.38
Notes: In Model 1, Overcrowding experience significantly influences the Adoption intention (p < 0.05).
In Model 2, Overcrowding experience significantly influences the Risk perception (p < 0.001).
In Model 3, Risk perception fully mediates Overcrowding experience’s influence on Adoption intention (p < 0.001).
*, **, and *** mean statistically significant at 5, 1, and 0.1% levels, respectively.
‘a’ refers to dummy variable (Male = 1, Female = 0).
 JOURNAL OF RISK RESEARCH 857

Table 7. Hierarchical Regression Analysis of risk perception and efficacy-related attributes On Adoption Intentions. Independent
variables without the Efficacy-related attributes (Step 1), Add three Efficacy-related attributes (Satisfaction, Enjoyment, Relax),
respectively (Step 2, Step 3, Step 4), add all the Efficacy-related variables (Step 5).

Attributes Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5

Predictors
Overcrowding risk perception 0.171** 0.035* 0.048* 0.011* 0.01*
Risk preference −0.032 −0.014 −0.017 −0.024 −0.007
Overcrowding experience 0.063 −0.008 −0.033 −0.020 −0.028
Gender a 0.069 0.043 0.041 0.043 0.041
Age 0.041 0.053 0.073 0.080 0.069
Travel frequency 0.036 0.011 0.030 0.040 0.018
Dwell time −0.071 −0.089 −0.086 −0.080 −0.094*
Number of under aged 0.093 0.102* 0.078 0.083 0.096*
Money −0.046 −0.087 −0.05 −0.086 −0.092
Time −0.142 −0.032 −0.108 −0.085 −0.053
Cooperation 0.331* 0.237** 0.308*** 0.277*** 0.242***
Satisfaction 0.471*** 0.279***
Enjoyment 0.435*** 0.074
Relax 0.474*** 0.219**
Adjusted R2 0.251 0.337 0.309 0.342 0.377
Notes: +, *, **, and *** mean statistically significant at 10, 5, 1, and 0.1% levels, respectively.

demographic characteristics, Table 7, Step 5 indicates that only the number of under aged children
was significantly related to precautionary action adoption intention (β = −0.096*, p < 0.05). In general,
Hypotheses H4 and H5 were weakly supported.
Generally speaking, efficacy-related attributes, risk perception, and resource-related attributes were
significantly related to precautionary action adoption intentions. Tables 5 and 7 show that the overall
predictive power (adjusted R2) of the model ranged from 25% to 35%, while the travel-specific attrib-
utes and demographic variables (Table 5, Step 3) added little to the explanation of adoption intentions
(1–5%).

5. Conclusion and discussion

This study identified the key factors that influence the public’s behavioral intention toward the risk
of holiday travel overcrowding. Different from previous studies, our research explores more detailed
attributes – efficacy-related and resource-related attributes of precautionary actions in a new risk sit-
uation. We applied these attributes to predict the Chinese public’s intention to adopt overcrowding
precautionary adjustments while traveling as compared with the effects of risk perception, travel-spe-
cific attributes, and demographic variables.
The results provided support for our hypotheses. First, as predicted by H1a and H1b, responders
with greater faith in the efficacy of precautionary adjustments (satisfaction, enjoyment, and relax-
ation) were more apt to adopt these actions. Contrary to H1a, the cost in money and time, and the
need for cooperation in order to take precautionary actions, yielded insignificant or even positive
correlations with the intention to adopt a precautionary measure, and only a small number of neg-
ative correlations were proven. In other words, when the Chinese public makes holiday travel deci-
sions, they consider the efficacy and satisfaction of the behavior more than the cost. Moreover, we
found that the most popular precautionary actions for Chinese tourists were scheduling paid annual
vacation trips and making advance reservations. However, we cannot ignore that the cooperation
required by certain resource-related attributes has a strong positive relation (Table 5, Step 2; Table 7,
Step 5) to the intention to adopt precautionary actions. This result appears contradictory. However,
increased cooperation need relates to more attention paid to response efficiency and a higher level
of self-efficacy as a reasonable explanation. In addition, cooperation is more a matter of one’s capacity
and is an internal factor, whereas money and time refer to costs and are external. Our findings are
858 S. LU AND J. WEI

inconsistent with results stated by Zaalberg et al. (2009). Lindell and Prater (2002) also reached similar
conclusions with regard to the intention to adopt earthquake adjustments. Contrary to H2, the effect
of travel-specific attributes (past overcrowding experiences, travel risk preferences, travel frequency,
and dwell time) on the respondents’ risk perceptions and intention to adopt precautionary action was
partially significant. The hypothesis that risk perception significantly correlated with precautionary
action intentions (H3a) was strongly supported, as was the hypothesis that efficacy-related attributes
were more responsible for variance in the intention to adopt precautionary actions (H3b). Consistent
with the Theory of Reasoned Action, the efficacy-related attributes were proven to be more important
than risk perception on action intention. In other words, ‘one’s attitude toward an object (e.g. hazard)
is less predictive of behavior than one’s attitude toward an act (e.g. hazard adjustments)’ (Fishbein
and Ajzen 1975). In addition, Grothmann and Reusswig (2006) found that coping appraisals corre-
lated more strongly with flood mitigation measures than threating appraisals. Finally, the responders’
demographic characteristics provided minimal explanation of the decision to adopt overcrowding
precautionary actions. In conclusion, older people, shorter dwell time, higher overcrowding risk per-
ception, and families traveling with a greater number of underage members showed the most intent
to adopt precautionary actions.

6. Implications
A number of implications both on theory and practice can be derived from our research. First, draw-
ing on the insights from the perception of overcrowding risk, our study extends the literature of PMT
and PADM to the field of holiday travel and tourism, which has not been done before. In addition, our
results revealed that risk perception plays an intermediary role between past overcrowding experiences
and precautionary action adoption intention. This new discovery may better explain the relationships
among past experience, risk perception, and precautionary action intentions. Furthermore, the results
showed that the efficacy-related attributes explain 20–30% of the variance in the intention to adopt
precautionary actions. In summary, the results of our study emphasize that understanding the public’s
perception of available precautionary adjustments is more important than understanding their risk
perception alone.
In addition to its theoretical contributions, our study also has significant managerial implications
for stakeholders in the tourism industry. First, given the high impact of efficacy-related attributes (sat-
isfaction, enjoyment, relaxation), if tourism authorities are inclined to stimulate the adoption of pre-
cautionary actions among Chinese travelers during peak seasons of holiday travel, the effectiveness
and satisfaction of the hazard adjustments should be explained and disseminated. Second, given the
significant relationship between overcrowding risk perception and the intention to adopt precautionary
actions, tourism administration of major scenic spots should point out but not exaggerate the risk of
holiday travel overcrowding and at the same time provide simple prevention practices with low costs
for the public. Third, our results imply that scheduling paid annual vacation trips (M = 3.73) and making
advance reservations (M = 3.74) are the most popular precautionary adjustments for the public, primarily
because they can best help them avoid overcrowding and best satisfy travelers. Therefore, enterprises
and public institutions should meet the needs of employees’ paid annual leave, whereas travel agencies
and scenic spot management should give discounts to tourists traveling during non-holiday times to
encourage them to avoid the peak travel seasons and to maintain tourist balance. A more convenient
and efficient online/offline advance reservation system should be provided by scenic spot manage-
ment committees, transport agencies, and hotels. Furthermore, the differences in tourists’ family age
structure, travel experience, and demographic characteristics should be taken into account. Lastly, our
results indicate that in order to improve the public’s intention to adopt precautionary actions when
confronted with holiday travel overcrowding risk and to maximize tourist satisfaction, tourism admin-
istrations, travel agencies, scenic spots management, and related stakeholders should work together
and implement joint efforts for improvement.
 JOURNAL OF RISK RESEARCH 859

7. Limitations and future research

Though we have proposed some interesting questions and made an early effort in exploring public’s
precautionary action adoption intentions about overcrowding risk of holiday travel, there are still some
limitations. First, most of the samples were drawn from a second-tier city in China (Hefei in Anhui
province). Further research may make a comparative study between second-tier city and first-tier city
(e.g. Beijing, Shanghai, or coastal cities in China) with a larger sample size. Second, the results show
low correlations and explanation of variance between resource-related attributes and precautionary
action intentions, though the theory of planned behavior shows significant correlations between them.
So, this deeper analysis is needed. In addition, other barriers (not only overcrowding risk) that impede
public’s holiday travel and their travel satisfaction should be taken into consideration for future research.

Note
1. 
9.94 million = 3.63 billion/365 day.

Acknowledgment
This research was funded by the National Key R&D Program of China (2016YFC0802500) and the National Natural Science
Foundation of China (71642005 and 71522013).

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

References
Adam, I. 2015. “Backpackers’ Risk Perceptions and Risk Reduction Strategies in Ghana.” Tourism Management 49: 99–108.
Alexandros, A., and S. Jaffry. 2005. “Stated Preferences for Two Cretan Heritage Attractions.” Annals of Tourism Research 32
(4): 985–1005.
Anhui Travel. 2016. Welcome to Anhui. Accessed March 17, 2016. http://www.anhui.travel/en/about/
Baloglu, S., and K. W. McCleary. 1999. “A Model of Destination Image Formation.” Annals of Tourism Research 26 (4): 868–897.
Bansal, H., and H. A. Eiselt. 2004. “Exploratory Research of Tourist Motivations and Planning.” Tourism Management 25 (3):
387–396.
Beaumont, N. 1997. “Perceived Crowding as an Evaluate Standard for Determining Social Carrying Capacity in Tourist
Recreation Areas: The Case of Green Island, North Queensland.” In Tourism Planning and Policy in Australia and New
Zealand: Cases, Issues and Practice, edited by C. M. Hall, J. Jenkins and G. Kearsley, 168–180. Sydney: Irwin.
Beck, U. 1992. Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. London: Sage.
Beirman, D. 2003. Restoring Tourism Destinations in Crisis. Wallingford: CABI.
Bentley, T. A., and S. J. Page. 2006. “Tourist Injury.” In Tourism in Turbulent Times-towards Safe Experiences for Visitors. Advances
in Tourism Research Series, edited by J. Wilks, D. Pendergast and P. Leggat, 70–155. Oxford: Elsevier.
Bojanic, D. C. 1992. “A Look at Modernized Family Life Cycle and Overseas Travel.” Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing
1 (1): 61–79.
Brunt, P., and D. Shepard. 2004. “The Influence of Crime on Tourist Decision-Making: Some Empirical Evidence.” Tourism
52 (4): 317–326.
Buckley, R. 1999. “An Ecological Perspective on Carrying Capacity.” Annals of Tourism Research 26 (3): 705–708.
Burton, I., R. Kates, and G. F. White. 1993. The Environment as Hazard. 2nd ed. New York: Guildford Press.
China National Tourism Administration. 2015. Accessed October 10, 2015. http://www.cnta.gov.cn/xxfb/jdxwnew2/201510/
t20151007_748641.shtml
Crompton, J. L. 1979. “Motivations for Pleasure Vacation.” Annals of Tourism Research 6 (4): 408–424.
Deery, M., L. Jago, and L. Fredline. 2012. “Rethinking Social Impacts of Tourism Research: A New Research Agenda.” Tourism
Management 33 (1): 64–73.
Dowling, G. R., and R. Staelin. 1994. “A Model of Perceived Risk and Intended Risk-Handling Activity.” Journal of Consumer
Research 21 (1): 119–135.
Eitzinger, C., and P. Wiedemann. 2007. “Risk Perceptions in the Alpine Tourist Destination Tyrol – An Exploratory Analysis
of Residents’ Views.” Tourism Management 28 (3): 911–916.
Fishbein, M., and I. Ajzen. 1975. Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
860 S. LU AND J. WEI

Floyd, D. L., S. Prentice-Dunn, and R. W. Rogers. 2000. “A Meta-Analysis of Research on Protection Motivation Theory.” Journal
of Applied Social Psychology 30 (2): 407–429.
Fothergill, A., and L. A. Peek. 2004. “Poverty and Disasters in the United States: A Review of Recent Sociological Findings.”
Natural Hazards 32 (1): 89–110.
Fuchs, G., and A. Reichel. 2006. “Tourist Destination Risk Perception: The Case of Israel.” Journal of Hospitality & Leisure
Marketing 14 (2): 83–108.
Fuchs, G., and A. Reichel. 2011. “An Exploratory Inquiry into Destination Risk Perceptions and Risk Reduction Strategies of
First Time Vs. Repeat Visitors to a Highly Volatile Destination.” Tourism Management 32 (2): 266–276.
Gallarza, M. G., and I. G. Gil Saura. 2006. “Value Dimensions, Perceived Value, Satisfaction and Loyalty: An Investigation of
University Students’ Travel Behaviour.” Tourism Management 27: 437–452.
Gallarza, M. G., I. G. Saura, and H. C. Garcı́a. 2002. “Destination Image: Towards a Conceptual Framework.” Annals of Tourism
Research 29 (1): 56–78.
Ge, Y., W. G. Peacock, and M. K. Lindell. 2011. “Florida Households’ Expected Responses to Hurricane Hazard Mitigation
Incentives.” Risk Analysis 31 (10): 1676–1691.
George, R. 2003. “Tourist's Perceptions of Safety and Security While Visiting Cape Town.” Tourism Management 24 (5): 575–585.
Giddens, A. 1991. Modernity and Self-Identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age. London and Cambridge: Polity.
Gitelson, R., and D. Kerstetter. 1992. “Adolescent Travel Experiences Shaping Post-Adolescent Travel Behavior.” Annals of
Tourism Research 19 (1): 128–131.
Grothmann, T., and F. Reusswig. 2006. “People at Risk of Flooding: Why Some Residents Take Precautionary Action While
Others Do Not.” Natural hazards 38 (1): 101–120.
Hales, C., and H. Shams. 1991. “Cautious Incremental Consumption: A Neglected Consumer Risk Reduction Strategy.”
European Journal of Marketing 25 (7): 7–21.
Harries, T., and E. Penning-Rowsell. 2011. “Victim Pressure, Institutional Inertia and Climate Change Adaptation: The Case
of Flood Risk.” Global Environmental Change 21 (1): 188–197.
Hildebrand, E. D. 2003. “Dimensions in Elderly Travel Behaviour: A Simplified Activity-Based Model using Lifestyle Clusters.”
Transportation 30 (3): 285–306.
Hylleberg, S. 1992. Modelling Seasonality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Iso-Ahola, S. E. 1980. The Social Psychology of Leisure and Recreation. Dubuque, IA: W.C. Brown.
Iso-Ahola, S. E. 1982. “Toward a Social Psychological Theory of Tourism Motivation: A Rejoinder.” Annals of Tourism Research
9 (2): 256–262.
Jackson, M., G. White, and M. G. White. 2001. “Developing a Tourist Personality Typology.” In CAUTHE 2001: Capitalising on
Research; Proceedings of the 11th Australian Tourism and Hospitality Research Conference, 177. University of Canberra Press.
Kellens, W., R. Zaalberg, and P. De Maeyer. 2012. “The Informed Society: An Analysis of the Public’s Information-Seeking
Behavior Regarding Coastal Flood Risks.” Risk Analysis 32 (8): 1369–1381.
Ko, D. W., and W. P. Stewart. 2002. “A Structural Equation Model of Residents’ Attitudes for Tourism Development.” Tourism
Management 23 (5): 521–530.
Lam, T., and C. Hsu. 2005. Taiwanese Traveller’s Travel Destination Choice Formation. 3rd APacCHRIE Conference, Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia, May 26–28.
Látková, P., and C. A. Vogt. 2012. “Residents’ Attitudes toward Existing and Future Tourism Development in Rural
Communities.” Journal of Travel Research 51 (1): 50–67.
Law, R., and C. Cheung. 2007. “Air Quality in Hong Kong: A Study of the Perception of International Visitors.” Journal of
Sustainable Tourism 15 (4): 390–401.
Lawson, R. 1991. “Patterns of Tourist Expenditure and Types of Vacation Across the Family Life Cycle.” Journal of Travel
Research 29 (4): 12–18.
Leiper, N. 1995. Tourism Management. Melbourne: RMIT Press.
Lepp, A., and H. Gibson. 2003. “Tourist Roles, Perceived Risk and International Tourism.” Annals of Tourism Research 30 (3):
606–624.
Lindberg, K., S. McCool, and G. Stankey. 1997. “Rethinking Carrying Capacity.” Annals of Tourism Research 24 (2): 461–465.
Lindell, M. K., and S. N. Hwang. 2008. “Households' Perceived Personal Risk and Responses in a Multihazard Environment.”
Risk Analysis 28 (2): 539–556.
Lindell, M. K., and R. W. Perry. 1992. Behavioral Foundations of Community Emergency Planning. Washington, DC: Hemisphere
Press.
Lindell, M. K., and R. W. Perry. 2004. Communicating Environmental Risk in Multiethnic Communities. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Lindell, M. K., and R. W. Perry. 2012. “The Protective Action Decision Model: Theoretical Modifications and Additional
Evidence.” Risk Analysis 32 (4): 616–632.
Lindell, M. K., and C. S. Prater. 2000. “Household Adoption of Seismic Hazard Adjustments: A Comparison of Residents in
Two States.” International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters 18 (2): 317–338.
Lindell, M. K., and C. S. Prater. 2002. “Risk Area Residents' Perceptions and Adoption of Seismic Hazard Adjustments1.”
Journal of Applied Social Psychology 32 (11): 2377–2392.
Lindell, M. K., and D. J. Whitney. 2000. “Correlates of Household Seismic Hazard Adjustment Adoption.” Risk Analysis 20
(1): 13–26.
 JOURNAL OF RISK RESEARCH 861

Lindell, M. K., S. Arlikatti, and C. S. Prater. 2009. “Why People Do What They Do to Protect against Earthquake Risk: Perceptions
of Hazard Adjustment Attributes.” Risk Analysis 29 (8): 1072–1088.
MacCannell, D. 1977. “Tourist and the New Community.” Annals of Tourism Research 4 (4): 208–216.
Madrigal, R. 1995. “Personal Values, Traveler Personality Type, and Leisure Travel Style.” Journal of Leisure Research 27: 125–142.
Mansfeld, Y. 2006. “The Role of Security Information in Tourism Crisis Management: The Missing Link.” In Tourism, Security
& Safety from Theory to Practice, edited by Y. Mansfeld and A. Pizam, 271–290. Oxford and Burlington, MA: Elsevier and
Butterworth-Heinemann.
Maser, B., and K. Weiermair. 1998. “Travel Decision-Making: From the Vantage Point of Perceived Risk and Information
Preferences.” Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing 7 (4): 107–121.
Mawby, R. I. 2000. “Tourists' Perceptions of Security: The Risk – Fear Paradox.” Tourism Economics 6 (2): 109–121.
McElroy, J., and K. de Albuquerque. 1998. “Tourism Penetration Index in Small Caribbean Islands.” Annals of Tourism Research
25 (1): 145–168.
McGehee, N. G., L. Loker-Murphy, and M. Uysal. 1996. “The Australian International Pleasure Travel Market: Motivations
from a Gendered Perspective.” The Journal of Tourism Studies 7 (1): 45–57.
Mitchell, V. W., F. Davies, L. Moutinho, and V. Vassos. 1999. “Using Neural Networks to Understand Service Risk in the Holiday
Product.” Journal of Business Research 46 (2): 167–180.
Mokhtarian, P. L., I. Salomon, and L. S. Redmond. 2001. “Understanding the Demand for Travel: It’s Not Purely ‘Derived’.”
Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research 14 (4): 355–380.
Needham, M. D., and R. B. Rollins. 2005. “Interest Group Standards for Recreation and Tourism Impacts at Ski Areas in the
Summer.” Tourism Management 26 (1): 1–13.
Needham, M. D., R. B. Rollins, and C. J. B. Wood. 2004. “Site-Specific Encounters, Norms and Crowding of Summer Visitors
at Alpine Ski Areas.” International Journal of Tourism Research 6 (6): 421–437.
Nkosi, G. 2010. “The Impact of Crime of Tourism in the City of UMhlathuze, KwaZulu-Natal.” South Asian Journal of Tourism
and Heritage 3 (2): 76–81.
Page, S. J., T. A. Bentley, and D. Meyer. 2003. “Evaluating the Nature, Scope and Extent of Tourist Accidents – The New
Zealand Experience.”
Panos, D. 1992. “Prevedouros Associations of Personality Characteristics with Transport Behavior and Residence Location
Decisions.” Transportation Research Part a: Policy and Practice 26: 381–391.
Parker, D., A. S. Manstead, and S. G. Stradling. 1995. “Extending the Theory of Planned Behaviour: The Role of Personal
Norm.” British Journal of Social Psychology 34 (2): 127–138.
Parker, D., T. Lajunen, and S. G. Stradling. 1998. “Dimensions of Driver Anger, Aggressive and Highway Code Violations and
Their Mediation by Safety Orientation in UK Drivers.” Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour 1
(2): 107–121.
Parrilla, J. C., A. R. Font, and J. R. Nadal. 2006. “Accommodation Determinants of Seasonal Patterns.” Annals of Tourism
Research 34 (2): 422–436.
Pearce, P. L. 1988. The Ulysses Factor: Evaluating Visitors in Tourist Settings. New York: Springer.
Peypoch, N., and B. Solonandrasana. 2007. “On E-Attraction Tourism Destination: Extension and Application.”
Pigram, J. J., and J. M. Jenkins. 1999. Outdoor Recreation Management. London: Routledge.
Pizam, A., P. E. Tarlow, and J. Bloom. 1997. “Making Tourists Feel Safe: Whose Responsibility is It?” Journal of Travel Research
36 (1): 23–28.
Plog, S. 2002. “The Power of Psychographics and the Concept of Venturesomeness.” Journal of Travel Research 40: 244–251.
Reichel, A., G. Fuchs, and N. Uriely. 2007. “Perceived Risk and the Non-Institutionalized Tourist Role: The Case of Israeli
Student Ex-Backpackers.” Journal of Travel Research 46 (2): 217–226.
Reisinger, Y., and F. Mavondo. 2005. “Travel Anxiety and Intentions to Travel Internationally: Implications of Travel Risk
Perception.” Journal of Travel Research 43: 212–225.
Rogers, R. W. 1975. “A Protection Motivation Theory of Fear Appeals and Attitude Change.” The Journal of Psychology 91
(1): 93–114.
Rogers, R. W., and S. Prentice-Dunn. 1997. “Protection Motivation Theory.” In Handbook of Health Behavior Research.
Determinants of Health Behavior. Personal and Social. Vol. 1, edited by D. Gochman, 113–132. New York: Plenum.
Romsa, G., and M. Blenman. 1989. “Vacation Patterns of the Elderly German.” Annals of Tourism Research 16 (2): 178–188.
Rutter, D. R., L. Quine, and D. J. Chesham. 1995. “Predicting Safe Riding Behaviour and Accidents: Demography, Beliefs, and
Behaviour in Motorcycling Safety.” Psychology and Health 10 (5): 369–386.
Saarinen, J. 2006. “Traditions of Sustainability in Tourism Studies.” Annals of Tourism Research 33 (4): 1121–1140.
Santana-Jiménez, Y., and J. M. Hernández. 2011. “Estimating the Effect of Overcrowding on Tourist Attraction: The Case of
Canary Islands.” Tourism Management 32 (2): 415–425.
Sasso, S. 2005. “Perceived Risk.” In International Encyclopedia of Hospitality Management, edited by A. Pizam, 465. Burlington,
MA: Elsevier and Butterworth -Heinemann.
862 S. LU AND J. WEI

Saveriades, A. 2000. “Establishing the Social Tourism Carrying Capacity for the Tourist Resorts of the East Coast of the
Republic of Cyprus.” Tourism Management 21 (2): 147–156.
Sonmez, S. F., and A. R. Graefe. 1998. “Determining Future Travel Behavior from past Travel Experience and Perceptions of
Risk and Safety.” Journal of Travel Research 37 (4): 171–177.
Terpstra, T., and M. K. Lindell. 2013. “Citizens’ Perceptions of Flood Hazard Adjustments: An Application of the Protective
Action Decision Model.” Environment and Behavior 45 (8): 993–1018.
Terpstra, T., M. K. Lindell, and J. M. Gutteling. 2009. “Does Communicating (Flood) Risk Affect (Flood) Risk Perceptions?
Results of a Quasi-Experimental Study.” Risk Analysis 29 (8): 1141–1155.
Wasantha Rathnayake, R. M. 2015. “How Does ‘Crowding’ Affect Visitor Satisfaction at the Horton Plains National Park in Sri
Lanka?” Tourism Management Perspectives 16: 129–138.
Wei, J., M. Zhao, F. Wang, P. Cheng, and D. Zhao. 2015. “An Empirical Study of the Volkswagen Crisis in China: Customers’
Information Processing and Behavioral Intentions.” Risk Analysis 36 (1): 114–129.
Wei, J., W. Zhu, D. Marinova, and F. Wang. 2015. “Household Adoption of Smog Protective Behavior: A Comparison between
Two Chinese Cities.” Journal of Risk Research 1–22.
Wen, Z. 1997. “China’s Domestic Tourism: Impetus, Development and Trends.” Tourism Management 18 (8): 565–571.
Wilson, C., and C. Tisdell. 2001. “Sea Turtles as a Non-Consumptive Tourism Resource Especially in Australia.” Tourism
Management 22 (3): 279–288.
World Tourism Organization UNWTO. 2014. UNWTO Annual Report 2014. Accessed December 15, 2015. http://www2.unwto.
org/annualreport2014
Yang, X., B. Pan, J. A. Evans, and B. Lv. 2015. “Forecasting Chinese Tourist Volume with Search Engine Data.” Tourism
Management 46: 386–397.
Zaalberg, R., C. Midden, A. Meijnders, and T. McCalley. 2009. “Prevention, Adaptation, and Threat Denial: Flooding Experiences
in the Netherlands.” Risk Analysis 29 (12): 1759–1778.
Zhao, M., D. Zhao, J. Wei, and F. Wang. 2015. “The Effects of Firm Action Messages on the Information Processing and Risk
Perception of Customers.” Risk Management 17 (4): 205–225.
Zhu, W., J. Wei, and D. Zhao. 2016. “Anti-Nuclear Behavioral Intentions: The Role of Perceived Knowledge, Information
Processing, and Risk Perception.” Energy Policy 88: 168–177.
Zimmermann, K. F. 1982. “Human Capital the Desire to have Children and Family Size.” Zeitschrift fur Bevolkerungswissenschaft
8 (4): 547–558.

Appendix 1. Copy of questionnaire

Part 1. Scenario
In 2007, The State Council changed the new measures on ‘Having a holiday for National Annual Leaves and Memorial Days’,
the official holidays for all citizens including New Year’s day, Spring Festival, tomb-sweeping day, labor day, Dragon Boat
Festival, Mid-Autumn festival and National Day. People often choose to travel during the holiday, thus official holidays
became a tourist peak season. During holidays, some well-known scenic spots are often overcrowded, caused different
kinds of accidents, such as the Jiuzhaigou scenic area stranded event during the 2013 National Day, the crowded stam-
pede on December 31 2014 in Shanghai bund, etc. Serious overcrowding of scenic spots not only affect the travel quality
of tourists, but also destroy the natural and cultural environment of the scenic area, and bring series of safety problems.
The travel experts and professionals put forward the following five frequently-used precautionary actions on how to avoid
the scenic spots overcrowding.

(1) Go to some less popular spots for holiday travel.

(2) Take some paid annual vacation trip, avoid the peak.
(3) Make advance reservation of the scenic spot tickets and hotel.
(4) Focus on online platform, make real-time adjustment.
(5) Use public transportation, reduce traffic congestion.
 JOURNAL OF RISK RESEARCH 863

Part 2. Questions
According to the above scenario, please answer the following questions.

(1) To what extent do you think scenic spots overcrowding risk harm to you? Please fill in 1 (Disagree extremely), 2
(Disagree), 3 (Neutrality), 4 (Agreed) or 5 (Agreed extremely).
(a) Overcrowding risk harm to my health
(b) Overcrowding harm to my mental health and emotion
(c) Overcrowding harm to my satisfaction of the scenic spot
(d) Overcrowding harm to my travel expenses
(e) Overcrowding harm to natural and human landscape
(f ) Overcrowding harm to social order of the scenic spot
(2) To what extent do you think the following action will influence the scenic spots overcrowding? Please fill in 1
(very small influence) to 5 (great influence).
(a) Go to some less popular spots for holiday travel
(b) Take some paid annual vacation trip, avoid the peak
(c) Focus on online platform, make real-time adjustment
(d) Make advance reservation of the scenic spot tickets and hotel
(e) Use public transportation, reduce traffic congestion
(f ) Do not take any measures
(3) To what extent do you agree, go to some less popular spots for holiday travel will make you？Please fill in
1(Disagree extremely) to 5(Agreed extremely).
(a) Satisfy my travel desire and needs
(b) Enjoy a good holiday with relatives and friends
(c) Relax body and mind
(d) Take me a lot of money
(e) Take me a lot of time
(f ) Need to communicate with others and cooperation
(g) It is what action I am going to do
(4) To what extent do you agree, take some paid annual vacation trip and avoid the peak will make you？Please fill
in 1(Disagree extremely) to 5(Agreed extremely).
(a) Satisfy my travel desire and needs
(b) Enjoy a good holiday with relatives and friends
(c) Relax body and mind
(d) Take me a lot of money
(e) Take me a lot of time
(f ) Need to communicate with others and cooperation
(g) It is what action I am going to do
(5) To what extent do you agree, focus on online platform , make real-time adjustment will make you？Please fill in
1(Disagree extremely) to 5(Agreed extremely).
(a) Satisfy my travel desire and needs
(b) Enjoy a good holiday with relatives and friends
(c) Relax body and mind
(d) Take me a lot of money
(e) Take me a lot of time
(f ) Need to communicate with others and cooperation
(g) It is what action I am going to do
(6) To what extent do you agree, make advance reservation of the scenic spot tickets and hotel will make you？Please
fill in 1(Disagree extremely) to 5(Agreed extremely).
(a) Satisfy my travel desire and needs
(b) Enjoy a good holiday with relatives and friends
(c) Relax body and mind
(d) Take me a lot of money
(e) Take me a lot of time
864 S. LU AND J. WEI

(f ) Need to communicate with others and cooperation

(g) It is what action I am going to do
(7) To what extent do you agree, use public transportation, reduce traffic congestion will make you？Please fill in
1(Disagree extremely) to 5(Agreed extremely).
(a) Satisfy my travel desire and needs
(b) Enjoy a good holiday with relatives and friends
(c) Relax body and mind
(d) Take me a lot of money
(e) Take me a lot of time
(f ) Need to communicate with others and cooperation
(g) It is what action I am going to do
(8) When taking holiday travel, how long will you stay inside the scenic spots? Please choose A, B, C, D or E.

A. Within half a day, B. 1 day, C. 1–3 days, D. 3–5 days, E. more than 5 days.

(9) What probability ( ) do scenic spots have overcrowding risk, will you insist on going there for holiday travel?
Please choose A, B, C, D or E.

A. 0%, B. 1–49%, C. 50%, D. 51–99%, E. 100%.

Part 3. Personal information

(1) Your age ( )
A. younger than 20, B. 21–30 years, C. 31–40 years, D. 41–50 years, E. elder than 50 years

(2) Your gender ( )
A. Male, B. Female

(3) Your current place of residence ( )

A. Countryside, B. Towns, C. Urban areas, D. Others

(4) Your marital status ( )

A. Married, B. Unmarried, C. others

(5) 5. How many people younger than 18 years ( ), between 18-65 years ( ) and elder than 65 years ( ) in your family?
Please fill in the specific number.
(6) What’s your average frequency of tourism ( ) times/ year, and the average number of person ( ) travel along with
you? Please fill in the specific number.
(7) Your highest education?

A. Junior high school, B. Senior high school, C. College degree, D. Undergraduate, E. Postgraduate

(8) Your personal annual income?

A. less than 30000 RMB, B. 30000 RMB–70000 RMB C. 70000 RMB–120000 RMB D. 120000 RMB–200000 RMB, E. more than
200000 RMB.
Here is the end of our survey, thank you for your participation and support. Best regards.
Copyright of Journal of Risk Research is the property of Routledge and its content may not be
copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.