Next Article in Journal
Assessment of National Innovation Ecosystems of the EU Countries and Ukraine in the Interests of Their Sustainable Development
Next Article in Special Issue
Assessing the Compensatory Potentiality of Hot Spring Tourism in the COVID-19 Post-Pandemic Environment
Previous Article in Journal
Factors Influencing Battery Electric Vehicle Adoption in Thailand—Expanding the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology’s Variables
Previous Article in Special Issue
An Analysis of the Measurement of Symbiosis Intensity in Scenic Spots and the Influence Mechanism
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 14
Issue 14
10.3390/su14148480
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

How Has the COVID-19 Pandemic Influenced the Tourism Behaviour of International Students in Poland?

by
Julita Szlachciuk
1,*,
Olena Kulykovets
2,
Maciej Dębski
2,
Adriana Krawczyk
3 and
Hanna Górska-Warsewicz
1
1
Department of Food Market and Consumer Research, Institute of Human Nutrition Sciences, Warsaw University of Life Sciences, 02-787 Warsaw, Poland
2
Department of Marketing and Tourism, Faculty of Management and Security Sciences, University of Social Sciences, 00-635 Warsaw, Poland
3
Centre for Applied Research on Education, Amsterdam School of International Business, 1102 CV Amsterdam, The Netherlands
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2022, 14(14), 8480; https://doi.org/10.3390/su14148480
Submission received: 30 May 2022 / Revised: 5 July 2022 / Accepted: 8 July 2022 / Published: 11 July 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sustainable Tourism Development and Destination Marketing in a Post-pandemic Era)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Nearly 20 years after the SARS (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome) epidemic, we are facing another COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, the aim of our study was to analyse the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the tourism behaviour of international students in Poland. We paid attention to the overall impact of the pandemic on life, travel, choice of tourist destination, tourism activity, ecotourism preference, and health and safety issues. We formulated two research questions: What areas of international student tourism behaviour were affected by the COVID-19 pandemic? What differences in travel behaviour occurred between international students from Europe and Asia? Participants were recruited from universities located in Warsaw between June and September 2020. A total of 806 questionnaires were collected, 87 of which were eliminated due to non-response. The research sample consisted of 719 people. Six factors were identified in the survey results: tourism inclination, impact on tourist destination, hygiene and accommodation, impact on life, impact on tourism, and mode of tourism. Impact on life and impact on tourism were attributed to the general impact dimension; tourism inclination and mode of tourism can be summarized as attitude and preference. Food and accommodation were assigned to hygiene and safety dimensions. In almost all aspects, the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on people’s lives was greater for Asian respondents. Asian respondents were more likely to say that they would avoid COVID-19-affected areas when choosing tourist destinations in the future, and avoid travelling to crowded large cities after COVID-19 ended. European survey participants’ responses were more moderate.

1. Introduction

General Overview

Travelling today has become a global phenomenon. Over the past two centuries, tourists have moved further and faster. The geographic distribution of diseases is highly dynamic and depends on a variety of factors, including ecological, genetic, and human factors. The ability to move allows travellers to interact with microbes and in some situations spread pathogens to new locations and other populations. The ease of travel and movement has reduced the geographical barrier for microorganisms and increased the possibility of spreading contagious diseases which may have a very negative impact on the operation of the tourism industry [1]. Risk, as an indispensable part of the global tourism economy, is a complex and multi-layered concept [2]. The perception of risk associated with an overseas trip can vary significantly depending on the geographic region. The importance of risk can vary and often depends on the internal beliefs of the traveller. The higher the perception of risk, the greater the avoidance of geographical regions associated with uncertainty. Both actual and perceived risk can potentially become dominant factors in the decision-making process of a tourist trip, especially when it comes to international travel [3].
Because the COVID-19 pandemic is such a threat to tourism, we conducted a study to determine the impact of the pandemic on tourism behaviour. Our study fills a gap in the literature as it addresses the travel behaviour of respondents not so often analysed, namely international students. The structure of the paper is as follows: first we present the literature review, then the purpose of the study and the methodology. We present the results in detail and discuss the findings. The article finishes with our conclusions, including practical recommendations, limitations of this study, and direction for future research.

2. Literature Review

The tourism industry is one of the most sensitive to disasters and crises, both natural and manmade [4]. These events, regardless of the nature of their origin, can have a meaningful impact on tourist arrivals and expenses [5]. In the research of the academic community over the past few years, topics related to the global tourism industry, such as political instability, financial crises [6], terrorist attacks [7], natural disasters [8], or specific infectious diseases [1], have received particular attention.
A tourism crisis is one of the factors that has an important impact on the image of a destination [4]. Natural crises in tourism research are often referred to under headings, such as hurricanes, floods, tsunamis, earthquakes, or bushfires [9]. In one of the studies, it was found that natural crises increase tourists’ perceived level of risk on a psychological level concerning tourist destinations, thus negatively affecting the image of that destination [5]. The area of crisis management is relatively new and there is little research that consistently combines theoretical knowledge with practical solutions. The most intensive work on crisis management appeared in the 1980s and 1990s when the frequency of organizational crises and their consequences was rapidly increasing [10]. A crisis management model included five crisis management variables: signal detection, preparation/prevention, damage limitation, improvement, and learning [11]. Perception of risk associated with international travel can be influenced by factors, such as the type of risk (threats), culture/nationality, proximity to the place of origin, and relations (information) in international media [1]. Taking into account that tourism is an important part of the economy, the effects of a crisis can have a negative long-term impact on both the destination itself and the country as a whole as a destination [12].
Eighteen years after the SARS (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome) “crisis”, we are dealing with another epidemiological situation called COVID-19. This new epidemic became a challenge for the tourism industry in early 2020. Healthcare and the economy were the two elements that were most affected by the epidemiological situation [13]. The global community is now better prepared to deal with the epidemic. The description of virus dissection, as well as diagnostic tests, are working much faster. Various organizations, including those supported by the WHO, were able to respond quickly to the epidemic and initiate technical support for vaccine development [14]. Moreover, standardized data collection tools were distributed and used in China within just a few weeks and the first clinical trials of a therapeutic intervention began in January 2020 [15]. These interventions were characterized by much higher medical standards, e.g., more educated health workers and a better technical background for analysis than in 2003 (SARS epidemic). This raises the question of why, despite better preparation, the number of COVID-19 virus infection cases is much higher than in SARS [16]. Wuhan, the epicentre of the COVID-19 virus, is the largest city in central China and a major transportation, industrial, and commercial hub, with the largest railway station, airport, and deep-water port [17]. Moreover, overseas travel from China has more than doubled in the last decade and the population density has nearly tripled. The closeness between people has decreased significantly, both in residential areas as well as when commuting and in work environments. However, the timing of the outbreak may have been crucial; approximately five million people, many of whom may have been carried COVID-19, left the city for various provinces in China for the upcoming Spring Festival Good. The city’s air transportation and its wide international reach contributed to the more rapid extension of the COVID-19 virus outside of China to other countries, such as Singapore, Japan, and Thailand [18].
A crucial element in the spread of epidemics is the travel pattern itself [19]. For example, computer modelling of the spread of an influenza epidemic using air travel data for fifty-two cities in 2000 explained that the virus would spread parallel to the cities in both directions, resulting in limited time for public health interventions [20]. The SARS outbreak in 2003 is an example of how human spatial mobility can contribute to the spread of viruses on a global scale. A previously unrecognized coronavirus caused an epidemic of respiratory infections that initially occurred in China’s Guangdong Province. The virus likely spread from civets (Chinese cats) to humans, although later studies suggest that a fruit bat was the source [21]. In response to the SARS outbreak, the Center for Disease Control (CDC) issued a message to stop travelling to SARS-affected countries, which harmed tourism. In 2004, the World Tourism Organization (WTO) reported that arrivals in some Asian countries affected by the SARS epidemic had dropped to around 50% from the previous year. Although these countries managed to recover from this crisis in a surprisingly short time, SARS was responsible for a decline of about 9% in total arrivals and departures to Asia in 2003, which also had a major impact on the economy [1].
COVID-19 virus is a serious threat to the global community. The spread of the virus not only affects security in terms of the traditional concept of state stability, but also undermines and weakens basic socioeconomic elements [22]. Currently, the impact of epidemics goes beyond morbidity and mortality rates. The slowdown of the Chinese economy and the disruptions of the global production and supply chain have caused companies around the world, regardless of business type or size, yet dependent on Chinese goods, to begin to feel the effects of reduced production. The reduction in not only international but also domestic transportation has further slowed global economic activity. Panic among consumers and businesses also disrupted customary consumption patterns and caused market anomalies [23]. According to the World Tourism Organization, international tourism recorded its worst year ever; international tourism declined by 74% from almost 1.5 billion arrivals in 2020 to around 381 million in 2019, reaching its lowest level. It is expected to take 2.5 to 4 years for international tourism to return to 2019 levels [24].
An important element in various events is the power of the media, which strongly influences the process of shaping perceptions of reality as well as the evaluation of the situation [25]. Mass media generates a certain image of reality by transmitting a variety of information and influencing the evaluation not only of the event (disaster) but also of the place where it occurred [26]. The repetition of certain content in the news has tremendous power and coverage wide enough to reach a worldwide audience [27]. On the other hand, the overload of information and informational chaos can be confusing for recipients. The tourism industry, which often uses media opportunities, should take an active position in better understanding the consequences of negative sensational reports, which should be based on facts rather than fictitious information with eye-catching headlines [28].

3. Research Objectives

The aim of our study was to analyse the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the tourism behaviour of international students in Poland. We paid attention to the overall impact of the pandemic on life, tourism, tourism destinations, tourism inclination, mode of tourism, and hygiene and accommodation issues. These issues have been combined into three areas: general impact, attitude, and preference, as well as hygiene and safety (Figure 1). We formulated two research questions:
  • What areas of international student tourism behaviour were affected by the COVID-19 pandemic?
  • What differences in travel behaviour occurred between international students from Europe and Asia?
Sustainability 14 08480 g001 550
Figure 1. Proposed hierarchical structure of COVID-19 impact on tourism behaviour.
Figure 1. Proposed hierarchical structure of COVID-19 impact on tourism behaviour.
Sustainability 14 08480 g001

4. Materials and Methods

4.1. Ethical Approval

Approval for this study was obtained from the Ethics Committee of the University of Social Sciences, in Poland on the date 23 March 2020 (Resolution No. 01/2020). Informed consent was given by all participants.

4.2. Design of Questionnaire

Due to the fact that in March 2020 there was no research on the impact of COVID-19 on tourism, the authors decided to use a questionnaire on the SARS epidemic’s impact on tourism [29]. The questionnaire was modified by the authors, due to existing conditions. The questionnaire consists of two parts. The first part consists of 20 items that cover the possible impacts of COVID-19 on the respondents’ tourism choices. The items were established to include three dimensions: general impact, attitude, and preference, along with safety and hygiene. A 5-point rating scale was used, in which 5 = agree, 4 = somewhat agree, 3 = neither agree nor disagree, 2 = somewhat disagree, and 1 = disagree. The respondents were asked to rate the level from agreement to disagreement according to their judgement. The second part contained questions about gender, age, working shifts, financial situation, and region.

4.3. Study Design and Sample

Participants were recruited from universities located in Warsaw, Poland. Due to the subject of the study, it was decided that the study would involve students from universities with a significant share of foreign students. The criterion for participation in the research was the participant must be studying in Poland for at least one year. After gaining the approval from Ethics Committee of the University of Social Sciences, the participants were invited to take part in the study. Data were collected using the computer-assisted web interviewing technique (CAWI). Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, it was not possible to directly circulate the survey among students. The survey was created in Google Forms, an online survey collection tool. We distributed the survey via MS Teams. Due to the pandemic COVID-19, all students were taught using this tool. There has been a growing interest among researchers in using online methods during the COVID-19 pandemic [30].
A survey was carried out from June to September 2020. The survey took approximately ten minutes to complete. We reached out to over 3000 students and received 807 responses. We eliminated 87 questionnaires due to missing responses. Thus, we obtained a research sample of 719 respondents. The characteristics of the study sample, considering socio-demographic features, are presented in Table 1.
Students aged 18 to 35 years and older participated in the survey. Most respondents were aged 18–26 years old (54.7%), 30.6% were aged 35 and above, and14.7% were aged 27–34 years old. Men accounted for 54.0% of the study population. A total of63.3% declared that they combined work and study. Most of the respondents (46.3%) assessed their financial situation as ‘I live sparingly and have enough money for my basic needs’. One-third admitted that ‘I have enough money for everything without special savings’. Only 4.3% described their situation as ‘I do not have enough money for my basic needs (such as food and clothes)’. More than half of the respondents (51.3%) were from Asian countries, and more than one-third were from European countries. Only 7.6% of respondents reported other origins, such as African.

4.4. Data Analysis

Using a descriptive analysis, the means, standard deviations (SD), minima, maxima, and frequencies (%) were calculated. The reliability of the scales was assessed by the use of Cronbach’s alpha coefficient. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient results showed a value of 0.857, which is acceptable [31]. The distributions of the analysed variables were checked by the Shapiro-Wilk test. A Kruskal-Wallis test or analysis of variance (ANOVA) with Dunn’s post-hoc method with Bonferroni correction was used to analyse the differences in statements between the larger of the two groups. The accepted level of significance was set at p ≤ 0.05.
An exploratory factor analysis (EFA) with oblimin rotation was used to define the nature of the relationship between the factors to determine whetherthe20 items were loaded on the hypothesized dimensions: general impact, attitude and preference, and hygiene and safety. The number of factors was determined based on the following criteria: components with an eigenvalue of 1, a scree plot test, and the interpretability of the factors. Information sources with factor loadings of at least 0.50 were considered. Data factorability was confirmed with the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) (cut-off value of 0.60) measure of sampling adequacy and Bartlett’s test of sphericity (p ≤ 0.05).
SPSS for Windows statistical software (7.0 version) was used to performed statistical analyses.

5. Results

5.1. Overall Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic

The results of our study show that COVID-19 had a significant impact on the work and lives of the respondents (Table 2). This is confirmed by the means of the items ‘COVID-19 has a great impact on my work and life’ (mean 4.20), and ‘COVID-19 has a great impact on my way of life’ (mean 4.04). Many respondents agreed that they cancelled their travel plans (‘All of my business travels have been cancelled during the COVID-19 period’—mean 4.17, ‘All of my leisure travels have been cancelled during the COVID-19 period’—mean 4.31). On the one hand, it can be inferred that the decrease in travel was due to travel bans (especially at the beginning of the pandemic) or, on the other hand, it can be inferred that respondents were afraid to travel. Respondents also showed interest in taking part in eco-tourism and outdoor activities (both means above 3.50).
The statement ‘I care more about the hygiene and safety of the tourist sites during the COVID-19 period’ scored the highest (mean 4.35). Other statements related to this issue also received a high mean (‘I care more about the hygiene and safety of the public recreation sites after the COVID-19 period’—mean 4.30; ‘I care more about the hygiene and safety of the daily necessities while travelling after the COVID-19 period’—mean 4.24).
Respondents declared a preference to travel with family members and relatives after COVID-19 (mean 3.80) and to limit the ability to join tour groups after COVID-19 (mean 3.76). Despite declaring a reduction in travel plans in the next 12 months (mean 3.72), a relatively moderate response was given to the statement ‘I will not take any travel activities till the next travel season after the COVID-19 period’ (mean 3.18). Respondents agreed that they would avoid COVID-19 affected areas (mean 3.96), they would prefer suburbs or areas within a short distance for leisure travel (mean 3.76), and they would reduce the length of travel and tourism after the pandemic (mean 3.57). Some respondents will travel mainly within their country after the COVID-19 pandemic (mean 3.50). The response to the statement ‘I will travel more abroad after the COVID-19 period’ is neutral with a mean of 3.18 (Table 2).

5.2. Explaratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

Primary variables have already been presented in Table 1. The respondents referred to them on a five-point ordinal scale. Thus, in the first stage of the EFA, the degree of similarity between the various variables was determined. The Pearson’s linear correlation coefficient was used as a measure of the similarity of the variables. The Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin measure verified the adequacy of the sample for analysis (KMO = 0.830), indicating that the choice of analysis and the number of factors were appropriate. Bartlett’s test of sphericity x2 = 5515.65, p ≤ 0.05, indicated that correlations between items were high enough to perform the analysis.
The EFA was conducted using maximum likelihood extraction with direct oblimin rotation. The results of the EFA of the 20 items with oblimin rotation made it possible to extractsix factors. Six factors were identified with an eigenvalue higher than the Kaiser criterion of 1. The first factor’s eigenvalue is 5.820 and it explains 29.098% of the variance. The second factor’s eigenvalue equals 2.090, which explains 10.452% of the variance. As for the third and fourth factors, their eigenvalues are 1.580 and 1.528, respectively (they explain about 7.900% and 7.638%). The fifth and sixth factors eigenvalues are 1.283 and 1.014 (they explain about 6.415% and 5.072%). They explained 66.58% of the total variance. It has been arbitrarily assumed that the components of the factor are those variables which, after rounding, obtain absolute values equal to 0.5 or greater.
The six factors were interpreted as following: impact on life (factor 1), impact on tourism (factor 2), tourism inclination (factor 3), mode of tourism (factor 4), impact on tourist destination (factor 5), and hygiene and acommodation(factor 6) (Table 3).

5.3. Regional Differences in Perceptionsof the Influence of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Some Aspects of Life

The analyses show that the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic varied regionally (Table 4). In almost all aspects, the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on people’s lives was greater for Asian respondents. Analyses of items collected in the general impact dimension show that respondents from European countries had the lowest general impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on people’s lives. In the second hypothetic dimension attitude and preference, a significant difference can be seen between the three groups. Respondents from Asia more frequently declared that they would avoid COVID-19 pandemic-affected areas when choosing tourist destinations in the future (mean 4.27). They would also avoid travelling to crowded, big cities after COVID-19 finishes (mean 4.02). Compared to the responses of respondents from other regions, the relatively moderate responses of European survey participants can be observed (mean 3.00). A similar relationship can be observed in the responses to the statements ‘I will take not any travel activities till the next travel season after the COVID-19 period’ (Europe—mean 2.27; Asia—mean 3.52; other—3.27), and ‘I will reduce the length of travel and tourism after the COVID-19 period’ (Europe—mean 3.07; Asia—mean 4.02; other—mean 3.23). The responses to the statement about international travel after the COVID-19 pandemic were moderate in the three groups analysed (Europe—mean 3.12; Asia—mean 3.22; other—mean 3.23). Asian respondents had a greater preference for travelling to the suburbs or within a short distance (mean 4.04), and for reducing the possibility of joining tour groups after the COVID-19 period (mean 4.00).
In the aspect of safety and hygiene, once again a greater concern can be observed among the Asian respondents. They declared to be more concerned about the hygiene and safety of tourist sites during COVID-19 (mean 4.57). Additionally, Asian participants were more likely to be concerned about hygiene and safety of everyday items (mean 4.42) and public recreation places (mean 4.52) when travelling after the COVID-19 period.

6. Discussion

Our study aimed to analyse the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the tourism behaviour of young people with special attention given to the impact of the pandemic on life, tourism, tourism destinations, tourism inclination, mode of tourism, and hygiene and accommodation issues. We treated the pandemic in our research as a crisis in which tourists, as well as businesses in the tourism industry, found themselves. We used a modification of the survey instrument used to examine tourist behaviour for SARS. As we indicated in the literature review, any crisis in tourism affects the travel decision-making process [3] and destination image [4] on the one hand, and on the other hand, it can become a source of creating a specific image of reality presented in the media [28]. This will affect not only the actual risk but also the way it is perceived [1]. In our research, we formulated two questions.
Answering the first research question, what areas of international student tourism behaviour were affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, we named six factors as we indicated above. Impact on life and impact on tourism were assigned to the general impact dimension; tourism inclination and mode of tourism can be summarized as attitude and preference. Food and accommodation are assigned to hygiene and safety dimensions.
The factor ‘tourism inclination’ was the most affected, explaining almost 30% of the variance. Five items were analysed within this factor: reduction in travel plans, avoidance of travel to big cities, reduction in travel time, avoidance of destinations with a high percentage of sick people, and not undertaking any travel activities until the next season. Our results are consistent with those of a study on a previous major pandemic, i.e., SARS [29], but also related to the COVID-19 pandemic. According to the European Commission’s report, after the Spring 2020 lockdown, tourist behaviour and choice were affected by psychological and economic factors. Psychological factors, related to the fear of contamination, impact the willingness to travel and the conditions of and preferences for a holiday destination. Economic factors were associated with the reduction in household income, because of unemployment or a reduction in working hours [32]. The survey conducted in Serbia during the last week of April and the first week of May 2020 shows predictions of changing tourism plans. Specifically, tourists planned to change their choice of destination, accommodation, tourist activities, and even decide not to travel or to travel for shorter periods. As an explanation, a correlation was shown between COVID-19 risk and COVID-19 travel anxiety, which also alters some forms of vacation behaviour. Travel anxiety during the COVID-19 pandemic led to a general abandonment of vacation trips, a cancellation of international travel, and even a shortening of planned vacation time. COVID-19 is a significant risk to international travel because it displaces typical vacation plans; however, failure to recognize COVID-19 as a travel risk can lead to the development of travel anxiety that further impacts vacation plans [33]. It is also important to consider the perception of risk associated with international travel, which can be determined by the type of risk (threat), culture/nationality, proximity to the place of origin, and coverage (information) in the international media [1]. In this aspect, the effects of the crisis may have a negative long-term impact on the entire country as a destination, which may translate negatively into the national economy [12].
The COVID-19 pandemic—as indicated by our study—influenced the choice of tourist destinations, explaining the variance of 10.5%. The survey conducted in Indonesia from March–April 2020 indicates the choice of natural tourism to travel and interact with the environment and local people. The responses of the respondents were dominated by the typology of the explorer-type tourist who chooses destinations they have never visited and travels in small numbers [34] According to the World Travel and Tourism Council, published in August 2020, more than half of Americans (58%) will choose domestic destinations and pay attention to locations relatively close to home [35].
The third factor in the factor analysis was related to hygiene and accommodation. Concern for hygiene and safety of tourist facilities, during travel, and with publicly accessible recreational facilities proved to be important. Items related to the choice of 5-star hotels received a mean score of 3.58. Our results are consistent with the results of other surveys. According to the World Travel and Tourism Council, health and safety are paramount in new times. Individual experiences, fear of being stuck in another country, and concerns about physical distance drive consumer behaviour in the short to medium term. Studies have shown that 89% of Americans are more aware of germs than they were before COVID-19, plus 80% of travellers fear potential quarantine as much as they fear contracting a virus. In turn, 69% of travellers cite cleanliness and health measures as critical components of travel brands’ crisis response [35]. This factor is particularly important because of the dynamics of the spread of a threat such as a pandemic. As we pointed out in the introduction, frequent travellers contribute to the international spread of various diseases if they have been previously infected [19]. Similar results were obtained from studies conducted during a pandemic, i.e., SARS. It was shown that SARS has changed people’s need for hygiene while traveling [29]. Therefore, it is important to pay attention to this factor and to take measures and actions to reduce the spread of diseases in the future.
The second research question addressed the differences in the travel behaviour of international students coming from Europe and Asia. In almost all aspects, the impact of the pandemic COVID-19 on people’s lives was more remarkable for Asian respondents. Asian respondents were more likely to say that they would avoid COVID-19 pandemic-affected areas when choosing tourist destinations in the future, and they would avoid travelling to crowded large cities after COVID-19 ended. European survey participants’ responses were more moderate. Similarly, in terms of safety and hygiene, Asian respondents were seen to be more concerned. They declared more significant worry for the hygiene and safety of tourist sites during the COVID-19 period and were more likely to be concerned about the hygiene and safety of everyday items and public recreation sites when travelling after the COVID-19 period.
The literature indicates that there are many geographic variations in the factors we examine. For example, research conducted among respondents from South and South-East Asian countries showed that trip purpose, mode choice, distance travelled, and travel frequency have changed significantly. Moreover, there was a significant shift from public transportation to private transportation and non-motorized modes. When choosing a mode of transportation during the pandemic, people placed more importance on pandemic-related concerns compared to general concerns. Gender, car ownership, employment status, travel distance, the primary purpose of travelling, and pandemic-related underlying factors during COVID-19 were found to be significant predictors of mode choice during the pandemic [36]. A study in Indonesia showed the impact of the pandemic on changing travel frequency, which was combined with teleworking and e-learning, and other online activities conducted at home [37].
The choice of a particular post-pandemic destination is also determined by perceptions of the destination. This is indicated by the results of a survey conducted between May and August 2020 among respondents who followed COVID-19 news in ten specific countries (China, South Korea, Italy, Germany, Iran, USA, Sweden, UK, New Zealand, and Turkey) and plans to visit those countries in the future. The findings revealed the strong and positive effects of trust and the healthcare system on the behavioural intention of respondents without experience to visit a destination. In contrast the effect of solidarity on behavioural intention was identified as much stronger for the prospect of tourists with past experience of visiting a destination [38]. In this aspect, destination image [39,40] as well as destination [41,42] or city brand equity [43,44] should be considered. A study in Malaysia confirmed that destination image significantly affects visit intention and significantly mediates the relationship between the factors and visit intention [39]. As we pointed out in the introduction, the spread of epidemics is affecting tourism behaviour [19]. This was applicable to the SARS epidemic 18 years ago [1]; it is also applicable to the current situation [24]. This is reflected in consumer psychology in the context of destination choice. Destinations that promote comfort and escape (e.g., beach destinations) may become popular for post-pandemic travel. Escape and scenic value are the main motivations for travel, while structural constraints (time and money) and health concerns are the main barriers to travel [45]. In contrast, a study conducted on a sample of 1845 respondents from more than 12 countries and 4 continents, representing quarantined and most affected areas, confirm that the media, as the primary source of information, has the greatest impact on raising the awareness of potential travellers during a crisis. In addition, potential travellers’ awareness depends on their nationalities [46]. Data collected from 942 respondents from mainland China and overseas indicated cultural differences in tourism behaviour. Overseas respondents were more likely to travel abroad and places within their own country and state/province. There was also a substantial difference between overseas and Chinese respondents in selecting their destination choice abroad. Overseas respondents appear to exhibit a habit of travelling [47]. This issue relating to the psychology of the tourist in the context of choosing a destination is important not only from the point of view of the pandemic but also considering the information provided by the media. The real image of tourist destinations can be distorted by an excess of negative news and its repetition in mass media [26,27].
Recently published research results confirmed our findings and additionally indicate some consequences on consumers’ travel behaviour. For example, a study conducted among travellers in the DACH region (Germany, Austria, Switzerland) noted a significant increase in risk perception of COVID-19, travel risk perception, and travel behaviour over a short period of time [48]. The results of a study conducted in the Republic of Korea showed that tourist travellers concentrated their movements in local areas and simplified their travel routes. In addition, the tourist demand was concentrated on beaches that previously had low tourist densities [49]. In contrast, another study was conducted, using a survey sample and including tourists from the Middle East, Asia, Africa, Australia, Europe and America; it indicated that the Covid-19 pandemic significantly affected travel risk perception and management. Travel risk perception and management was significantly related to risk management, service delivery, transportation patterns, distribution channels, avoidance of overcrowded places, and hygiene and safety [50].
In summary, our study indicates the impact of a pandemic on tourist behaviour, identifying those areas most affected by such an impact. However, our study has some limitations. These are related to the timing of the study, namely during the main wave of the pandemic, which resulted in the way tourists were reached. Of course, the best way would have been individual interviews, but due to constraints from the pandemic, this was not possible. In addition, we did not reach representatives of students of all nationalities who were studying in Warsaw, the capital of Poland. We did not identify this problem among international students in other Polish cities. We assumed that Warsaw is the largest academic centre in Poland in terms of the number of international students. This is confirmed by the data of the Polish ministry responsible for higher education.

7. Conclusions

The COVID-19 pandemic had a significant impact on the travel behaviour of international students studying in Poland. Travel motives, destination choice, and behaviour related to finding accommodation, hygiene, and safety have changed. It can be assumed that after the COVID-19 period, the tourism industry will face a completely new challenge related to the changed behaviour of all tourists. The shift towards individualized tourism, away from the big cities, and towards tranquillity and sustainability will determine the further development of the tourism industry. Therefore, managers in the tourism industry as well as representatives of tourist organizations should not only pay attention to ensuring hygiene during travel, accommodation, and catering, but it would also be important to take activity to ensure greater perceived safety of tourists and to lessen risks. Such measures should be permanently incorporated into the operation of airports, public transport, accommodation, catering, leisure, and cultural services. Entrepreneurs must effectively acquire and apply new knowledge about tourist behaviour and their changing needs. They must take into account the concerns of tourists that arose during the pandemic and that may remain afterwards. Recommendations for international students studying in Poland should be broader than those for other tourists. More attention should be paid to their health status at the time of entering the university and crossing the Polish border, and later during their stay. Different geographical conditions, diet, and lifestyle may affect their physical and mental health. Therefore, greater concern for international students should be the goal of university authorities as well as educational organizations dealing with international students. This is a big challenge because of the cross-cultural differences and the different ways in which sectors, such as healthcare, operate.
Such research should be continued in the context of specific geographic regions for detailed identification of tourist preferences. We also see the need for further research related to the study of student behaviour related to tourism after the pandemic, and thus to determine its real (post COVID-19) impact on changing tourist behaviour. Moreover, the analysis of factors determining tourists’ perception of travel risk, choice of tourist destinations, and accommodation should be indicated as directions for future research. It is also necessary to answer the question of how tourists will choose places that provide accommodation and food. How will the post-regulation of tourism service quality change? Will there be a development in sustainable forms of tourism? Will there be a greater preference for slow tourism? Finally, will the introduction of information about activities to ensure greater safety of tourists into the promotional campaigns of tourist destinations increase the interest of tourists and encourage travelling? These are just some of the directions of future research that should be undertaken.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, O.K., J.S. and H.G.-W.; methodology, O.K., J.S. and H.G.-W.; software, J.S.; validation, O.K.; formal analysis, J.S.; investigation, O.K., J.S. and H.G.-W.; resources, O.K., J.S., M.D. and H.G.-W.; writing—O.K., J.S., M.D. and H.G.-W.; writing—review and editing, O.K., J.S., M.D., A.K. and H.G.-W.; visualization, O.K., J.S.; supervision, H.G.-W.; project administration, H.G.-W.; funding acquisition, O.K., M.D. and H.G.-W. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The Article Processing Charge was financed by the Polish Ministry of Science and Higher Education within funds of Institute of Human Nutrition, Warsaw University of Life Sciences (WULS) for scientific research. The Article Processing Charge was also financed by University of Social Sciences.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by The Social Bioethics Committee of the University of Social Sciences (Resolution of The Scientific Research Ethics Committee With The Participation Of Employees of the University of Social Sciences No 1/2020).

Informed Consent Statement

All subjects gave their informed consent for inclusion before they participated in the study.

Data Availability Statement

Data are available at the Department of Food Market and Consumption research in the Institute of Human Nutrition Sciences, Warsaw University of Life Sciences, in Poland.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. McA Baker, D. Tourism and the Health Effects of Infectious Diseases: Are There Potential Risks for Tourists? Int. J. Saf. Secur. Tour. 2015, 12, 3. [Google Scholar]
  2. Clarke, L.; James, F.; Short, J. Social Organization and Risk: Some Current Controversies. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 1993, 19, 375–399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Sönmez, S.F.; Graefe, A.R. Influence of terrorism risk on foreign tourism decisions. Ann. Tour. Res. 1998, 25, 112–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  4. Faulkner, B. Towards a framework for tourism disaster management. Tour. Manag. 2001, 22, 135–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Huan, T.-C.; Beaman, J.; Shelby, L. No-escape natural disaster Mitigating Impacts on Tourism. Ann. Tour. Res. 2004, 31, 255–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Li, S.; Blake, A.; Cooper, C. China’s tourism in a global financial crisis: A computable general equilibrium approach. Curr. Issues Tour. 2010, 13, 435–453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Bowen, C.; Fidgeon, P.; John, S.; Page, S.J. Current Issues in Tourism Maritime tourism and terrorism: Customer perceptions of the potential terrorist threat to cruise shipping Maritime tourism and terrorism: Customer perceptions of the potential terrorist threat to cruise shipping. Curr. Issues Tour. 2014, 17, 610–639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Wright, D.; Sharpley, R. Current Issues in Tourism Local community perceptions of disaster tourism: The case of L’Aquila, Italy Local community perceptions of disaster tourism: The case of L’Aquila, Italy. Curr. Issues Tour. 2018, 21, 1569–1585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Ritchie, B.W.; Crotts, J.C.; Zehrer, A.; Volsky, G.T. Understanding the Effects of a Tourism Crisis: The Impact of the BP Oil Spill on Regional Lodging Demand. J. Travel Res. 2014, 53, 12–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Paraskevas, A.; Altinay, L.; McLean, J.; Cooper, C. Crisis knowledge in tourism: Types, flows and governance. Ann. Tour. Res. 2013, 41, 130–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Mitroff, I.I. Crisis Management: Cutting Through the Confusion. Sloan Manag. Rev. 1988, 29, 15. [Google Scholar]
  12. Santana, G. Crisis Management and Tourism. J. Travel Tour. Mark. 2004, 15, 299–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Vărzaru, A.A.; Bocean, C.G.; Cazacu, M. Rethinking tourism industry in pandemic COVID-19 period. Sustainability 2021, 13, 6956. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Mccloskey, B.; Heymann, D.L. Epidemiology and Infection SARS to novel coronavirus-old lessons and new lessons. Epidemiol. Infect. 2020, 148, 1–4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  15. Wang, C.; Horby, P.W.; Hayden, F.G.; Gao, G.F. A novel coronavirus outbreak of global health concern. Lancet 2020, 395, 470–473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Wilder-Smith, A.; Chiew, C.J.; Lee, V.J. Can we contain the COVID-19 outbreak with the same measures as for SARS? Lancet Infect. Dis. 2020, 20, e102–e107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Mary, E.; Wilson, L.H.C. Travellers give wings to novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV). J. Travel Med. 2020, 27, taaa015. [Google Scholar]
  18. Bogoch, I.I.; Watts Phd, A.; Thomas-Bachli, A.; Msa, C.H.; Dphil, M.U.G.K.; Khan, K. Potential for global spread of a novel coronavirus from China. J. Travel Med. 2020, 2020, 1–3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Hollingsworth, T.D.; Ferguson, N.M.; Anderson, R.M. Frequent travelers and rate of spread of epidemics. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 2007, 13, 1288–1294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Grais, R.F.; Hugh Ellis, J.; Glass, G.E. Assessing the impact of airline travel on the geographic spread of pandemic influenza. Eur. J. Epidemiol. 2003, 18, 1065–1072. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Li, W.; Shi, Z.; Yu, M.; Ren, W.; Smith, C.; Epstein, J.H.; Wang, H.; Crameri, G.; Hu, Z.; Zhang, H.; et al. Bats Are Natural Reservoirs of SARS-Like Coronaviruses. Science 2005, 310, 676–679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Ruiz Estrada, M.A.; Koutronas, E. The Networks Infection Contagious Diseases Positioning System (NICDP-System): The Case of Wuhan-COVID-19. SSRN Electron. J. 2020. Available online: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3548413. (accessed on 29 May 2022). [CrossRef]
  23. McKibbin, W.J.; Fernando, R. The Global Macroeconomic Impacts of COVID-19: Seven Scenarios. SSRN Electron. J. 2020, 20, 1–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. How COVID-19 is changing the world: A statistical perspective from the Committee for the Coordination of Statistical activities. Stat. J. IAOS 2020, 36, 851–860. [CrossRef]
  25. Gartner, W.C. Image Formation Process. J. Travel Tour. Mark. 1994, 2, 191–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Beerli, A.; Martín, J.D. Factors influencing destination image. Ann. Tour. Res. 2004, 31, 657–681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Tasci, A.D.A.; Gartner, W.C.; Cavusgil, S.T. Conceptualization and Operationalization of Destination Image. J. Hosp. Tour. Res. 2007, 31, 194–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Walters, G.; Mair, J.; Lim, J. Sensationalist media reporting of disastrous events: Implications for tourism. J. Hosp. Tour. Manag. 2016, 28, 3–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Zhang, W.; Gu, H.; Kavanaugh, R.R. The impacts of SARS on the consumer behaviour of Chinese domestic tourists. Curr. Issues Tour. 2005, 8, 22–38. [Google Scholar]
  30. Akintunde, T.Y.; Musa, T.H.; Musa, H.H.; Musa, I.H.; Chen, S.; Ibrahim, E.; Tassang, A.E.; Helmy, M.S.E.D.M. Bibliometric analysis of global scientific literature on effects of COVID-19 pandemic on mental health. Asian J. Psychiatr. 2021, 63, 102753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Tavakol, M.; Dennick, R. Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha. Int. J. Med. Educ. 2011, 2, 53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Santos, M.; Madrid González, A.; Haegeman, C.; Rainoldi, K. Behavioural Changes in Tourism in Times of COVID-19 Employment Scenarios and Policy Options; Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2020; ISBN 9789276204015. [Google Scholar]
  33. Bratić, M.; Radivojević, A.; Stojiljković, N.; Simović, O.; Juvan, E.; Lesjak, M.; Podovšovnik, E. Should i stay or should i go? Tourists’ COVID-19 risk perception and vacation behavior shift. Sustainability 2021, 13, 3573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Kusumaningrum, D.A.; Wachyuni, S.S. The Shifting Trends in Travelling After the COVID-19 Pandemic. Int. J. Tour. Hosp. Rev. 2020, 7, 31–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Council, T.; Wyman, O. To Recovery & Beyond: The Future of Travel & Tourism in the Wake of COVID-19. World Travel Tour. Counc. 2020, 14–22. [Google Scholar]
  36. Abdullah, M.; Dias, C.; Muley, D.; Shahin, M. Exploring the impacts of COVID-19 on travel behavior and mode preferences. Transp. Res. Interdiscip. Perspect 2020, 8, 100255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Irawan, M.Z.; Belgiawan, P.F.; Joewono, T.B.; Bastarianto, F.F.; Rizki, M.; Ilahi, A. Exploring activity-travel behavior changes during the beginning of COVID-19 pandemic in Indonesia. Transportation 2022, 49, 529–553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Rasoolimanesh, S.M.; Seyfi, S.; Rastegar, R.; Hall, C.M. Destination image during the COVID-19 pandemic and future travel behavior: The moderating role of past experience. J. Destin. Mark. Manag. 2021, 21, 2212–2571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Ahmad, A.; Jamaludin, A.; Zuraimi, N.S.M.; Valeri, M. Visit intention and destination image in post-COVID-19 crisis recovery. Curr. Issues Tour. 2020, 24, 2392–2397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Cardoso, L.; Dias, F.; de Araújo, A.F.; Andrés Marques, M.I. A destination imagery processing model: Structural differences between dream and favourite destinations. Ann. Tour. Res. 2019, 74, 81–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Im, H.H.; Kim, S.S.; Elliot, S.; Han, H. Conceptualizing Destination Brand Equity Dimensions from a Consumer-Based Brand Equity Perspective. J. Travel Tour. Mark. 2012, 29, 385–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Yousaf, A.; Amin, I. Can customer based brand equity help destinations to stay in race? An empirical study of Kashmir valley. Tour. Hosp. Manag. 2017, 23, 251–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Lucarelli, A. Unraveling the complexity of “city brand equity”: A three-dimensional framework. J. Place Manag. Dev. 2012, 5, 231–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Górska-Warsewicz, H. Factors determining city brand equity-A systematic literature review. Sustainability 2020, 12, 7858. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Jin, X.; Bao, J.; Tang, C. Profiling and evaluating Chinese consumers regarding post-COVID-19 travel. Curr. Issues Tour. 2021, 25, 745–763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Chemli, S.; Toanoglou, M.; Valeri, M. The impact of COVID-19 media coverage on tourist’s awareness for future travelling. Curr. Issues Tour. 2022, 25, 179–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Chen, X.; Duan, Y.; Ali, L.; Duan, Y.; Ryu, K. Understanding consumer travel behavior during covid-19. Sustainability 2021, 13, 13330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Neuburger, L.; Egger, R. Travel risk perception and travel behaviour during the COVID-19 pandemic 2020: A case study of the DACH region. Curr. Issues Tour. 2020, 24, 1003–1016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Jeon, C.Y.; Yang, H.W. The structural changes of a local tourism network: Comparison of before and after COVID-19. Curr. Issues Tour. 2021, 24, 3324–3338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Rahman, M.K.; Gazi, A.I.; Bhuiyan, M.A.; Rahaman, A. Effect of COVID-19 pandemic on tourist travel risk and management perceptions. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0256486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table
Table 1. Characteristics of the studied group, considering selected socio-demographic characteristics.
Table 1. Characteristics of the studied group, considering selected socio-demographic characteristics.
VariablesTotal
N = 719(%)
Gender
Female33146.0
Male38854.0
Age
18–2639354.7
27–3410614.7
35 and above22030.6
Working shifts
No26436.7
Yes45563.3
Financial situation
I have enough money for everything without special savings24834.5
I live sparingly and have enough money for my basic needs33346.3
I live very sparingly to put aside money for my secondary needs10714.9
I do not have enough money for my basic needs (such as food and clothes)314.3
Region
Europe28639.8
Asia36951.3
Other648.9
Table
Table 2. Summary of the responses of the survey (N = 719).
Table 2. Summary of the responses of the survey (N = 719).
ItemsMean *; SDMedian (Minimum–Maximum)
General impactCOVID-19 has a great impact on my work and life4.20 ± 1.1405 ** (1–5)
COVID-19 has a great impact on my way of life4.04 ± 1.1364 ** (1–5)
All of my business travels have been cancelled during the COVID-19 period4.17 ± 1.1865 ** (1–5)
All of my leisure travels have been cancelled during the COVID-19 period4.31 ± 1.0415 ** (1–5)
Attitude and preferenceBecause of COVID-19, my interest in participating in eco-tourism has increased3.54 ± 1.2874 ** (1–5)
Because of COVID-19, my interest in participating in outdoor activities has increased3.52 ± 1.3274 ** (1–5)
I will definitely reduce my travel plans in the next 12 months3.72 ± 1.3864 ** (1–5)
I will avoid travelling to crowded big cities after COVID-19 finishes3.57 ± 1.3964 ** (1–5)
I will reduce the length of travel and tourism after the COVID-19 period3.57 ± 1.3394 ** (1–5)
In choosing tourist destinations, I will avoid COVID-19-affected areas3.96 ± 1.1994 ** (1–5)
I will not take any travel activities till the next travel season after the COVID-19 period3.18 ± 1.4433 ** (1–5)
I prefer suburbs or areas within short distance for leisure travel after the COVID-19 period3.76 ± 1.1704 ** (1–5)
I will reduce the possibility of joining tour groups after the COVID-19 period3.76 ± 1.1884 ** (1–5)
I prefer travelling with family members and relatives after the COVID-19 period3.80 ± 1.2384 ** (1–5)
I will travel more around the country after the COVID-19 period3.50 ± 1.2864 ** (1–5)
I will travel more abroad after the COVID-19 period3.18 ± 1.3213 ** (1–5)
Hygiene and safetyI care more about the hygiene and safety of the tourist sites during the COVID-19 period4.35 ± 0.9825 ** (1–5)
I care more about the hygiene and safety of the daily necessities while travelling after the COVID-19 period4.24 ± 1.0165 ** (1–5)
I care more about the hygiene and safety of the public recreation sites after the COVID-19 period4.30 ± 0.9945 ** (1–5)
I prefer to stay in high-quality, five-star hotels after the COVID-19 period3.58 ± 1.2934 ** (1–5)
* a five-point of scale—a rating of “1” means; a rating of “5” means). ** distribution different than normal (Shapiro-Wilk test—p ≤ 0.05).
Table
Table 3. The results of EFA.
Table 3. The results of EFA.
ItemsImpact on LifeImpact on
Tourism		Tourism InclinationMode of tourismImpact on Tourist
Destination		Hygiene and Accommodation
General impactCOVID-19 has a great impact on my work and life0.825
COVID-19 has a great impact on my way of life0.875
All of my business travels have been cancelled during the COVID-19 period −0.608
All of my leisure travels have been cancelled during the COVID-19 period −0.590
Attitude and preferenceBecause of COVID-19, my interest in participating in eco-tourism has increased −0.770
Because of COVID-19, my interest in participating in outdoor activities has increased −0.590
I will definitely reduce my travel plans in the next 12 months 0.589
I will avoid travelling to crowded big cities after COVID-19 finishes 0.744
I will reduce the length of travel and tourism after the COVID-19 period 0.647
In choosing tourist destinations, I will avoid COVID-19-affected areas 0.545
I will not take any travel activities till the next travel season after the COVID-19 period 0.806
I prefer suburbs or areas within short distance for leisure travel after the COVID-19 period 0.615
I will reduce the possibility of joining tour groups after the COVID-19 period 0.565
I prefer travelling with family members and relatives after the COVID-19 period 0.843
I will travel more around the country after the COVID-19 period 0.827
I will travel more abroad after the COVID-19 period 0.833
Hygiene and safetyI care more about the hygiene and safety of the tourist sites during the COVID-19 period −0.792
I care more about the hygiene and safety of the daily necessities while travelling after the COVID-19 period −0.838
I care more about the hygiene and safety of the public recreation sites after the COVID-19 period −0.792
I prefer to stay in high-quality, five-star hotels after the COVID-19 period −0.508
Variance explained (%)7.60%6.42%29.10%5.07%10.45%7.90%
Total variance explained66.58%
Table
Table 4. Responses by region.
Table 4. Responses by region.
ItemsRegion
EuropeAsiaOthers
MeanSDMeanSDMeanSD
General impactCOVID-19 has a great impact on my work and life *3.86 a ± 1.324.53 ab ± 0.833.83 b ± 1.29
COVID-19 has a great impact on my way of life *3.60 ab ± 1.294.35 a ± 0.864.23 b ± 1.21
All of my business travels have been cancelled during the COVID-19 period *3.88 ab ± 1.344.38 a ± 0.974.19 ± 1.31
All of my leisure travels have been cancelled during the COVID-19 period *4.11 a ± 1.204.48 a ± 0.834.17 ± 1.20
Attitude and preferenceBecause of COVID-19, my interest in participating in eco-tourism has increased3.41 ± 1.343.65 ± 1.223.50 ± 1.40
Because of COVID-19, my interest in participating in outdoor activities has increased3.48 ± 1.223.55 ± 1.373.52 ± 1.53
I will definitely reduce my travel plans in the next 12 months *3.31 ab ± 1.474.01 a ± 1.213.87 b ± 1.48
I will avoid travelling to crowded big cities after COVID-19 finishes *3.00 ab ± 1.444.02 ac ± 1.233.55 bc ± 1.21
I will reduce the length of travel and tourism after the COVID-19 period *3.07 a ± 1.334.02 ab ± 1.163.23 b ± 1.46
In choosing tourist destinations, I will avoid COVID-19-affected areas *3.55 ab ± 1.264.27 a ± 1.064.00 b ± 1.16
I will not take any travel activities till the next travel season after the COVID-19 period *2.71 ab ± 1.373.52 a ± 1.393.27 b ± 1.51
I prefer suburbs or areas within short distance for leisure travel after the COVID-19 period *3.40 a ± 1.164.04 a ± 1.113.77 ± 1.14
I will reduce the possibility of joining tour groups after the COVID-19 period *3.42 ab ± 1.214.00 a ± 1.133.91 b ± 1.08
I prefer travelling with family members and relatives after the COVID-19 period *3.52 ab ± 1.263.97 a ± 1.204.11 b ± 1.24
I will travel more around the country after the COVID-19 period *3.32 a ± 1.233.63 a ± 1.333.55 ± 1.22
I will travel more abroad after the COVID-19 period3.12 ± 1.273.22 ± 1.393.23 ± 1.12
Hygiene andsafetyI care more about the hygiene and safety of the tourist sites during the COVID-19 period *4.10 a ± 1.084.57 a ± 0.794.20 ± 1.24
I care more about the hygiene and safety of the daily necessities while travelling after the COVID-19 period *3.99 a ± 1.104.42 a ± 0.894.25 ± 1.02
I care more about the hygiene and safety of the public recreation sites after the COVID-19 period *4.06 a ± 1.134.52 ab ± 0.804.12 b ± 1.06
I prefer to stay in high-quality, five-star hotels after the COVID-19 period *3.47 a ± 1.303.76 ab ± 1.203.03 b ± 1.54
* Kruskal-Wallis test; Dunn with the Bonferroni correction posthoc; p ≤ 0.01. abc values with different letters differed significantly at p ≤ 0.05.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Szlachciuk, J.; Kulykovets, O.; Dębski, M.; Krawczyk, A.; Górska-Warsewicz, H. How Has the COVID-19 Pandemic Influenced the Tourism Behaviour of International Students in Poland? Sustainability 2022, 14, 8480. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14148480

AMA Style

Szlachciuk J, Kulykovets O, Dębski M, Krawczyk A, Górska-Warsewicz H. How Has the COVID-19 Pandemic Influenced the Tourism Behaviour of International Students in Poland? Sustainability. 2022; 14(14):8480. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14148480

Chicago/Turabian Style

Szlachciuk, Julita, Olena Kulykovets, Maciej Dębski, Adriana Krawczyk, and Hanna Górska-Warsewicz. 2022. "How Has the COVID-19 Pandemic Influenced the Tourism Behaviour of International Students in Poland?" Sustainability 14, no. 14: 8480. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14148480

APA Style

Szlachciuk, J., Kulykovets, O., Dębski, M., Krawczyk, A., & Górska-Warsewicz, H. (2022). How Has the COVID-19 Pandemic Influenced the Tourism Behaviour of International Students in Poland? Sustainability, 14(14), 8480. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14148480

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop