Next Article in Journal
A Framework for Assessing Climate Adaptation Governance on the Caribbean Island of Curaçao
Previous Article in Journal
Evolutionary Game Analysis of Collaborative Prevention and Control for Public Health Emergencies
 
 
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 22
10.3390/su142215090
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

The Relationship between Perceived Risks and Campsite Selection in the COVID-19 Era

by
Xing Xu
,
Aonan Wei
,
Yuchan Liu
and
Tiansheng Xia
*
Department of Industrial Design, Guangdong University of Technology, Guangzhou 510090, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2022, 14(22), 15090; https://doi.org/10.3390/su142215090
Submission received: 20 October 2022 / Revised: 6 November 2022 / Accepted: 11 November 2022 / Published: 15 November 2022
(This article belongs to the Section Tourism, Culture, and Heritage)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Although camping as a form of leisure tourism has grown increasingly popular since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, research on factors influencing campsite selection is still limited. This study aims to explore the relationship between perceived risk and campsite selection. We constructed a moderated mediation model and tested whether destination image acted as a mediator in this association, and whether tourists’ camping knowledge level moderated the indirect effect of destination image. Three hundred and twenty-five Chinese participants filled out questionnaires regarding perceived risk, campsite selection, destination image, and level of camping knowledge. The results revealed that perceived risk had a significant direct impact on destination image and campsite selection, and destination image mediated the relationship between perceived risk and campsites. Camping knowledge level moderated the indirect effect. Specifically, the influence of destination image on campsite choice was more significant for participants with a higher level of camping knowledge. These results explain the relationship between campers’ risk perception and campsite selection. This study has practical implications for individuals’ camping choices and the marketing strategies of related companies.

1. Introduction

The COVID-19 pandemic has negatively impacted the economic, financial, and social systems of myriad countries, and the economic downturn and normalization of the pandemic have severely impacted leisure tourism. The risk COVID-19 poses to travel and its influence on behavioral changes in tourists have become important research questions [1]. Under the critical situation of COVID-19, tourists have become more concerned about the impact of social policies on tourism, as well as their health and safety [2]. Camping is considered a more secure way to travel in the COVID-19 era, providing visitors with a safe social distance while meeting their leisure and travel requirements [3]. People have adjusted their leisure activities, reducing long-distance travel and increasing activities such as camping [4].
Camping is generally divided into backcountry camping and campground camping. An essential difference between the two is the presence or absence of outdoor hospitality services [5]. These services often make camping more convenient for campers; however, campers seeking a more extreme nature experience may feel hindered by them. Previous studies have shown that perceived risk is a significant factor influencing travelers’ destination choices [6]. The perceived risk of travel can change tourists’ perceptions of destinations [7], and destination image plays a crucial role in influencing tourists’ destination choices and travel patterns [8]. Few studies have examined the risk perception and destination image associated with campsite selection, though camping has become a popular leisure activity during the pandemic. In addition, because of the technical specificity of the activity, campers’ level of camping knowledge significantly impacts their campsite choices [9]. The preparation of tools and facilities for backcountry camping, as well as the selection and construction of campsite locations, is entirely up to the camper. This may be difficult for novice campers, who are not easily able to complete this series of operations. The outdoor hospitality services of campground camping reduces the required amount of knowledge and ability; however, this leads to the gap between the two types of campsites in terms of visitors’ level of camping knowledge. As such, an assessment of campers’ knowledge is an essential factor in determining where they would camp [10].
Although camping has a long history and is quite popular today, previous research on camping has been relatively scarce, and it has focused on Western countries [11]. Therefore, this study analyzes and discusses the differences between backcountry camping and campground camping with a sample of Chinese college students, and explores the relationship between perceived risk, destination image, camping knowledge, and campsite selection. This study further explains tourists’ attitudes and evaluations of different camping options and provides suggestions for the construction and development of suburban tourism and camping services [12], thus inspiring camping as a popular form of tourism in the era of COVID-19.

2. Literature Review and Hypothesis Development

2.1. Risk Perception and Campsite Selection

Camping is a popular mode of outdoor recreation. It is a type of nature tourism that integrates dining, entertainment, and accommodation [13]. Camping can be divided into two categories, according to behavioral attributes: backcountry camping and campground camping [9]. In campground camping, campers are provided with good infrastructure, meals, camping equipment, public restrooms, and parking. Backcountry camping refers to campsite activities in which campers go to the unexplored wilderness, prepare their own equipment and meals, and set up their own campsites [9]. This camping terminology is not internationally uniform and camping generally refers to lodging in tents or RVs (Recreation Vehicle) in un-serviced locations such as a forest or rural area. Campsites with permanent lodging facilities and outdoor hospitality services may be referred to as campgrounds, travel parks, or RV parks [5].
Since the onset of COVID-19, an increasing number of tourists have participated in camping, and glamping has become increasingly popular in recent years [14]. Camping includes a wide range of options, from simple to luxurious [15]. As more young people are going camping, the primitive camping experience has continued to evolve into luxury camping. In turn, this has led to a greater variety of campsites and more diverse service options. “Glamping” usually centers around campground camping, while the backcountry camping experience must be built and enhanced by campers themselves. Campsite selection is influenced by the following: natural scenery and campground environment of the destination [11], personal time and equipment facilities [16], gender and age of the camper, and services and meals at the campground [13].
Tourism is a sensitive and fragile industry that is vulnerable to various uncertainties such as natural disasters, epidemics and terrorism [17,18]. These potential crises often have a significant impact on tourists’ psychology and behavior [19,20]. As a result, the influence of perceived risk of travel behavior and decision-making is becoming more pronounced, with tourists choosing safer destinations whenever possible [21,22]. Under the influence of COVID-19, camping, as a way to relax close to nature, not only fulfills the need for travel and helps visitors escape the exhaustion of city life, but it offers them a safer way to eat and socialize at a distance, unlike other ways of traveling’s food and accommodation. All of this allows visitors to reduce their perception of risk [3,17]. Compared with backcountry camping, campground camping has a lower risk for tourists. Campers in the campground do not have to struggle to set up their campsites or face the possibility of accidental injury in the wilderness and have a better infrastructure to secure other living needs.
The existing literature on tourism risk addresses psychological, human, health, financial, and environmental risks [23,24,25,26]. These risks can be categorized as psychology and health [27,28], safety and adventure [29,30], or natural disasters and crises [20,26,31]. Some researchers have also explored the structure and dimensions of risk perception [32], and they believe that the perceived risk and risk tolerance are directly related to tourists themselves.
Since 2020, numerous studies have also explored risk factors involving tourist psychology and transportation [23,28,33]. As a form of recreational tourism, camping can be affected by perceived risks to tourists, such as virus transmission when camping among a high concentration of tourists. At the same time, travelers’ tolerance for different risks can also influence their choice of campsites [32]. For example, differing financial flexibility can lead to tourists having different tolerance for spending money on camping equipment, thus affecting their choice of campsite. Various risk factors exist to influence tourists’ camping decisions, and this study proposes the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1.
Perceived risk has a direct impact on campsite selection.

2.2. The Mediating Role of Destination Image

Hunt (1971) argued that destination image is a pivotal factor influencing tourists’ behaviors [34]. Destination images consist of a combination of external stimuli and visitor characteristics [35], including visitors’ perception, emotion, and overall impression of a destination [36]. Destination images play a crucial role in influencing tourists’ destination choices and outing mode, not only in terms of destination decisions but also in subsequent evaluations, such as destination satisfaction and loyalty [37]. Specifically, destination image has three components: cognitive, affective, and conative image [38]. Each of these components have different attributes, but they are interrelated and combine to produce an impact on decision-making [39,40]. Cognitive images refer to the sum of visitors’ perceptions of the destination, expressed as organic and induced images [41]. These are based on tourists’ knowledge of and trust in the destination. Affective images depend, to some extent, on cognitive images. They reflect the subjective feelings of tourists towards the destination, through emotional reactions or evaluations [42,43]. Conative images mainly refer to the idealized image and expectations of a place as a potential tourism destination. These typically arise from the stimulation of cognitive and affective images, which highlight the pursuit of specific elements of the destination [44].
The study of destination image and risk perception as two separate properties has been fruitful in the tourism literature [24,45]. Studies have shown that risk has a significant impact on the affective image of the destination to a large extent, which can prompt changes in travelers’ destination choices [7]. The impact of risk on destinations originates from the dominance, arousal, and pleasure of risk on tourists’ emotions [46]. The perceived level of risk often dictates the choice of the destination. Stimulating and emotional descriptions of risk may even incite a tourist’s interest in a destination; though the memory of risk diminishes over time, pleasurable emotions are retained, thus motivating tourists to visit such a destination [20].
Chew and Jahari demonstrated that cognitive and affective images in the destination image mediated the relationship between perceived, psychological, and financial risks, as well as intention to revisit [47]. In countries such as Israel and Uganda, which are considered “dangerous destinations” because of their war-prone nature [24,48], the risk factors perceived by tourists are higher. The same pattern of influence is also seen with diseases and natural disasters [38], suggesting that changes in destination image can affect the risks perceived by tourists. At the same time, destination image helps tourists to conduct risk assessments. By creating positive, safe, novel, and affective images, campgrounds can reduce the adverse risk perceived, or enhance the positive risk perception to attract tourists [30,49,50].
In past academic studies on destination images, researchers have assessed destination images with multi-attribute versus single method studies because of the varying importance of each component in the destination image [51,52]. These studies have mostly favored the analysis of perceived images and their influence on their tourism behavior and evaluation, such as purchase intention, satisfaction, and loyalty [53,54]. A study by Sönmez and Graefe (1998) [6], for example, divided tourists into risk-averse and risk-seekers. Each of these groups had different requirements for a destination image. The different choices of campsite type may represent differences in tourists’ attitudes towards risk. Specifically, backcountry camping is closer to nature and far from the city, leaving campers vulnerable to extreme weather and personal accidents. By contrast, a campground camping facility is often safer because of its robust infrastructure and additional service options. The difficulty associated with camping in the wilderness may make it more desirable for risk-seeking tourists. Based on this discussion, this study proposes the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 2.
Perceived risk has a significant effect on destination image and camp-choice, with destination image mediating the relationship between perceived risk and camp-choice.

2.3. Moderating Effect of Level of Camping Knowledge

Gursoy and Chen (2012) [9] suggested that the level of camping knowledge affects campsite decisions. The level of camping knowledge is referred to as a prior product knowledge in tourism research [55]. This comprises familiarity and expertise, mainly reflecting travelers’ assessment of information and predictions of their subsequent behavior and events, based on their own experiences [56].
As they differ in difficulty, these two types of camping require different personal experiences and knowledge abilities. All activities, equipment, and facilities for backcountry camping need to be arranged and prepared by the camper, and the construction of the campsite requires high physical coordination; thus, this type of camping requires more time and a higher level of camping knowledge. In contrast, campground camping sites have more existing structures and campers must do little themselves. This process requires less camping knowledge and ability, and is easier for novice campers [56]. Tourists often receive information about a destination in various ways, leading them to build an image of the destination before they decide to travel [57]. Tourists analyze this information using their experiences, and this analysis shapes subsequent behaviors. Thus, the influence of destination image on visitors’ campsite selection is enhanced when their camping knowledge is low. When visitors’ camping knowledge is high, they are more likely to believe in their abilities, as the influence of destination image on campsite selection diminishes. Therefore, we propose the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 3.
The camping knowledge level moderates the relationship between destination image and campsite selection.
In this study, we used perceived risk as the independent variable and camping mode selection as the dependent variable. We also used destination image as the mediating variable and the level of camping knowledge as the moderating variable. We then constructed a moderated mediating model to explore the relationship between perceived risk and camping mode choice, as shown in Figure 1.

3. Methods

3.1. Participants

This research is based on the Chinese camping market and this study used convenience sampling to collect data through questionnaires in the southern Chinese city of Guangzhou. Many participants were undergraduates and graduates. This study used convenience sampling to collect data through questionnaires. In total, 396 questionnaires were distributed. Of the sample, 75.1% were female and 95.4% were between 18–34 years old. Incomplete and inattentive questionnaires were excluded and 325 valid questionnaires were obtained, with an effective recovery rate of 82.1%. All the participants provided written informed consent. The study was also approved by the academic ethics committee of the first author’s university.
The questionnaire consisted of four main sections: demographics, self-assessment of camping knowledge level, the effect of destination image on the willingness to choose a campsite, and the effect of perceived risk on the choice of campsite. The demographic section addressed the sample’s gender, age, economic status, education level, marital status, whether or not they had a camping experience, and self-perceived level of knowledge about camping. Please see the complete questionnaire in the Supplementary Material at the end of the article.

3.2. Research Instrument

The perceived risk questionnaire was adapted from Fuchs and Reichel [7], with four dimensions: health risk, environmental image, financial risk, and physical risk. The study used a 7-point Likert scale, with 1 indicating a greater preference for backcountry camping and 7 indicating a greater preference for campground camping. The Cronbach’s alpha for the sample was 0.85.
The destination image questionnaire was adapted from Stylos and Andronikidis with three dimensions: cognitive image, affective image, and conative image [40]. The questionnaire consisted of 10 items scored on a 7-point Likert scale, with 1 indicating a greater preference for backcountry camping and 7 indicating a greater preference for campground camping. The Cronbach’s alpha for the sample was 0.78.
The level of camping knowledge was compiled according to Gursoy and Chen with six items divided into two dimensions: camping knowledge, and camping ability [9]. A questionnaire was used with a 6-point Likert scale, in which 1 corresponded to no knowledge or ability at all, and 6 indicated perfect knowledge or ability. The Cronbach’s alpha for the sample was 0.90.
These questionnaires can be found in the Supplementary Materials.

3.3. Data Analysis

First, a descriptive statistical analysis of the data was conducted with the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS), followed by correlation analysis between variables. Second, the PROCESS macro for SPSS (Model 4) was applied to examine the mediating role of destination image in the link between perceived risk and campsite selection. Finally, we conducted a moderated mediation analysis using PROCESS in SPSS (Model 14) to determine whether the indirect path was moderated by level of camping knowledge. All study variables were standardized in Model 4 and Model 14 before model testing. We included several demographic variables as covariates in statistical analyses.

4. Results

4.1. Descriptive Statistics

As Table 1 shows, the results show the overview of the samples. In order to compare the influence of demographic variables on the current study variables, we conducted several univariate ANOVA.
For the gender, a one-way ANOVA revealed that gender significantly impacted camping knowledge and campsite selection (p < 0.001), see Table 2. Male camping knowledge (M = 20.15, SD = 8.01) was significantly higher than that of females (M = 16.04, SD = 5.60), and compared to males (M = 5.00, SD = 1.95), female participants (M = 5.71, SD = 1.40) preferred campground camping more. However, the effect of revenue, education background, career, and camping experience on campsite selection were not significant, ps > 0.05.

4.2. Correlation Analysis

As Table 3 shows, a Pearson correlation analysis revealed that perceived risk was significantly positively correlated with destination image and campsite selection (p < 0.01), destination image was significantly positively correlated with campsite selection (p < 0.01), and campsite selection was significantly negatively correlated with level of camping knowledge (p < 0.01).

4.3. Mediation Analysis

Model 4 of the PROCESS macro was used to test the indirect effect of destination image in the relationship of perceived risk and campsite selection (see Table 4 and Figure 2). After controlling for several demographic variables, perceived risk positively predicted destination image (b = 0.45, t = 9.26, p < 0.001) and campsite selection (b = 0.14, t = 2.14, p = 0.032). In addition, destination image had a significant predictive effect on campsite selection (b = 0.45, t = 6.33, p < 0.001). The bias-corrected percentile bootstrap method suggested that the indirect effect of destination image was 0.20, and its 95% confidence interval was [0.126, 0.285]. The indirect effect accounted for 65.7% of total effect of perceived risk on campsite selection. Therefore, Hypotheses 1 and 2 were supported.

4.4. Moderated Mediation Analysis

We expected that camping knowledge would moderate the association between destination image and campsite selection. Model 14 of the PROCESS macro was used to examine this hypothesis. The results showed that perceived risk significantly and positively influenced destination image (b = 0.50, p < 0.001) and campsite selection (b = 0.18, p = 0.012). Additionally, destination image significantly and positively influenced campsite selection (b = 0.41, p < 0.001), and destination image mediated perceived risk and campsite selection with a 95% CI of [0.126, 0.293], not including 0, and a significant mediating effect. Level of camping knowledge moderated destination image and campsite selection (95% CI [0.006, 0.039], excluding 0), with a significant moderating effect.
Simple slope tests (Figure 3) showed that, when camping knowledge was high (+1), the effect of destination image on campsite selection was b = 0.55, p < 0.001. However, when camping knowledge was low (−1), the effect of destination image on campsite selection was b = 0.26, p = 0.006. These results indicate that high levels of camping knowledge enhanced the influence of campsite selection.
A conditional indirect effects analysis further suggested that camping knowledge moderated the indirect effect of perceived risk on campsite selection via destination image, see Table 5. Specifically, when the camping knowledge level was high, there was a significant indirect relationship between perceived risk and campsite selection (indirect effect = 0.26, SE = 0.05, 95% CI = [0.16, 0.36]). When camping knowledge level was low, the indirect relationship between perceived risk and campsite selection (indirect effect = 0.13, SE = 0.04, 95% CI = [0.05, 0.22]) was significantly weaker. Therefore, Hypothesis 3 was supported.

5. Discussion

In a context where COVID-19 is becoming normalized, camping is becoming increasingly popular as a form of leisure tourism. This study constructs a moderated mediating effect model with destination image as the mediating variable and level of camping knowledge as the moderating variable to explore the relationship between perceived risk and campsite selection, and to obtain meaningful results.
First, this study found that perceived risk significantly and positively influenced campsite selection. Based on previous studies [23,24,26], we categorized the risks of camping as health, financial, environmental, and physiological. Existing research suggests that perceived risk significantly affects tourists’ intentions and decisions during tourism [58]. And for camping, the perception of risk changes visitors’ judgment of the difficulty of camping and its personal impact. In turn, this changes a camper’s destination image and choice of campsite. A medium is generally required to evoke visitors’ perception of the risk of camping. For example, visitors perceive campground camping-based hospitality services to be low in difficulty and risk, so novice campers are more likely to choose this type of camping. It is worth noting that, due to the increasing popularity of camping since the onset of COVID-19, there is a greater concentration of people camping on campgrounds; this concentration may lead to higher levels of virus transmission. As such, there is a stronger perception of health risks among campers, which may prompt them to choose backcountry camping.
Second, tourists’ perception of risk significantly affects destination image, which in turn impacts the selection of campsites—the influence of perceived risk on tourists’ campsite selection is realized through the mediating role of destination image, and destination image significantly and positively influences campsite selection. The change in risk perceived by travelers influences their emotional image perception of the destination, which leads to changes in their decision making [20]. Likewise, as the risks perceived by campers change during the camping trip, their perception of the emotional image of the campground changes. For example, campground activities and services may elicit fun emotions and experiences for campers; however, these may become dangerous in the context of a pandemic. These risks evoke a perception of threat; when the destination image gives campers a stronger risk perception, campers instead choose a safer and more secure way of camping. As such, when risk is inevitable, campgrounds may benefit from increasing campers’ acceptance of risk by creating a positive image of the destination when they are not avoidable. Campgrounds can cater to campers’ experience by better understanding the needs of visitors and conducting more effective marketing campaigns. For example, when tourists are seeking novel and adventurous trips, they prefer to prepare sites for themselves to have fun and gain a sense of accomplishment. In this scenario, the image of a campground with a tent already set up would not be conducive to the experience of campers.
In addition, according to existing studies, we know that destination image influences travel decisions in several dimensions. When tourists have expectations about destination image, they use various methods to obtain information to determine whether the destination is in line with their expectations to make the next decision [59,60]. From a camping perspective, the overall image of the destination represented by the two camping styles is very different and represents the diverse needs of campers camping. Concretely, campers are more inclined to choose campground camping when they perceive the destination image to be a safe activity with high-quality service. When the preferred destination image is close to nature and away from socialization, campers prefer backcountry camping. In addition to these positive images, there are also negative image perceptions that influence campers’ intentions and behaviors [61]. For example, campers may choose to go camping in campgrounds when the destination image is humble, whereas campers choose to camp in the backcountry when the destination image is congested.
Third, this study found that camping knowledge moderates the relationship between destination image and campsite selection. Previous findings suggest that travelers’ prior knowledge influences travel decisions, including both familiarity and expertise dimensions [56]. Additionally, when their level of camping knowledge is higher, campers tend to choose backcountry camping [9]. The present study validates these previous findings. This study also further corroborates the moderating effect of camping knowledge level on campsite selection. Backcountry camping is more difficult for tourists when their camping knowledge is poor; although they enjoy it, many opt for campground camping. However, when the image of the backcountry camping destination is more in line with campers’ expectations, they are more likely to choose it as a simplistic natural experience, despite their limited camping knowledge.

6. Research Limitations and Future Research Directions

This study used a questionnaire survey with a convenience sampling method to focus on the relationship between destination image and campsite selection in the COVID-19 era. We found that destination image mediates the relationship between perceived risk and campsite selection, with the level of camping knowledge moderating the mediating effect. For example, when campers initially want to choose backcountry camping for the sense of adventure, the image of backcountry camping as lacking in essential services and construction may lead them to associate it with poor dining or sanitation experiences, leading them to choose campground camping in the end. At the same time, campers’ low level of camping knowledge may also drive them to select campground camping.
We explored campsite selection in conjunction with influential tourism attributes, and our study validated multiple hypotheses. Nevertheless, this study had limitations. First, although risk affects tourists’ decisions and behavior in all aspects of their travel, this study only examined its effect on campsite selection. As risk perception is highly affected by individual motivation and self-competence, such as personal spending power, trip purpose, and emergency response ability in case of emergencies, which are also related to other camping-specific operations. Therefore, follow-up studies can be conducted for specific operational issues. Secondly, this study was carried out based on the Chinese tourism market, which can influence tourists to make decisions due to China’s specific anti-epidemic and travel policies. Therefore, this conclusion should be applied selectively to other countries. Due to the selective nature of the researcher’s sampling, this study is discussed mainly in relation to the young Chinese market with somewhat limited generalizability, with participants mostly coming from Chinese university students, which is not representative of all travelers in terms of economic status and behavioral preferences. Moreover, due to the convergence of the education level of this sample, it is hard to cover the knowledge level of most travelers in this category, so it cannot represent the behavioral preferences of all campers. Hence, subsequent research should conduct to find a larger sample of typical campers to explore the relationship between campers’ camping knowledge level, their education, and other travel experiences to improve the research framework of camping. Lastly, the previous literature does not yield a standard judgment index for level of camping knowledge, and there is no standardized understanding of specific camping knowledge. This study only differentiates camping knowledge and camping ability, based on expertise and familiarity. As such, the measurement structure of knowledge level requires more systematic research.

7. Conclusions

In conclusion, we found that risk perception significantly affects the choice of campsite, with destination image playing a mediating role. In other words, the perception of risk originates through the tourists’ judgment of the destination image. In this process, tourists’ level of camping knowledge plays a moderating role. The different levels of camping knowledge possessed by travelers may also lead them to change their decisions. Therefore, when building campsites, we should consider the needs of visitors with varying levels of camping knowledge. For visitors who want to save energy, focus on enjoying leisure, and have poor camping knowledge, we can provide services such as tent setting. For visitors seeking an adventure experience, away from socializing and with a high level of camping knowledge, the campsite can provide them with a wilderness-like camping environment and give them sufficient camping freedom, allowing campers to use their initiative to enhance their camping experience.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/su142215090/s1, Table S1: Questionnaire Research on The Willingness to Choose a Campsite and Its Influencing Factors.

Author Contributions

X.X. and T.X. designed the study. A.W. and Y.L. collected and analyzed the data. X.X., A.W. and T.X. wrote the first draft of the manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by grants from the National Social Science Foundation of China (18BYY089), and Humanity Design and Engineering Research Team (263303306).

Institutional Review Board Statement

This work has been approved by the Departmental Ethics Committee and the Institutional Review Board of the Guangdong University of Technology.

Informed Consent Statement

Written informed consent has been obtained from the participants to publish this paper.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors report no conflict of interest in this work.

References

  1. Villacé-Molinero, T.; Fernández-Muñoz, J.J.; Orea-Giner, A.; Fuentes-Moraleda, L. Understanding the new post-COVID-19 risk scenario: Outlooks and challenges for a new era of tourism. Tour. Manag. 2021, 86, 104324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Li, Z.; Wang, D.; Abbas, J.; Hassan, S.; Mubeen, R. Tourists’ Health Risk Threats Amid COVID-19 Era: Role of Technology Innovation, Transformation, and Recovery Implications for Sustainable Tourism. Front. Psychol. 2022, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Choi, E.-Y.; Jang, M.-H. The Moderating Role of COVID-19 Perceived Risk between Health Concern and Psychological Well-Being of Active Senior Campers Using PROCESS Macro Model. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 11405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Kang, S.-E.; Hwang, Y.; Lee, C.-K.; Park, Y.-N. Roles of travel and leisure in quality of life during the COVID-19 pandemic. Leis. Stud. 2021, 41, 326–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Brooker, E.; Joppe, M. Trends in camping and outdoor hospitality—An international review. J. Outdoor Recreat. Tour. 2013, 3, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Sönmez, S.F.; Graefe, A.R. Determining Future Travel Behavior from Past Travel Experience and Perceptions of Risk and Safety. J. Travel Res. 1998, 37, 171–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Fuchs, G.; Reichel, A. An exploratory inquiry into destination risk perceptions and risk reduction strategies of first time vs. repeat visitors to a highly volatile destination. Tour. Manag. 2011, 32, 266–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Chen, C.-F.; Tsai, D. How destination image and evaluative factors affect behavioral intentions? Tour. Manag. 2007, 28, 1115–1122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Gursoy, D.; Chen, B.T. Factors Influencing Camping Behavior: The Case of Taiwan. J. Hosp. Mark. Manag. 2012, 21, 659–678. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Genton, B.; Behrens, R.H. Specialized Travel Consultation Part I: Travelers’ Prior Knowledge. J. Travel Med. 1994, 1, 8–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Lee, C.-F. Understanding the Factors Determining the Attractiveness of Camping Tourism: A Hierarchical Approach. Tour. Plan. Dev. 2020, 17, 556–572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Vorobjovas-Pinta, O.; Wilk, V. Marketing Suburban Tourism Destinations on Social Media: The Case of the City of Joondalup, Western Australia. In Case Based Research in Tourism, Travel, Hospitality and Events; Springer: Singapore, 2022; pp. 219–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Brochado, A.; Pereira, C. Comfortable experiences in nature accommodation: Perceived service quality in Glamping. J. Outdoor Recreat. Tour. 2017, 17, 77–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. A Craig, C.; Karabas, I. Glamping after the coronavirus pandemic. Tour. Hosp. Res. 2021, 21, 251–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Brooker, E.; Joppe, M. A critical review of camping research and direction for future studies. J. Vacat. Mark. 2014, 20, 335–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Hardy, T.; Ogunmokun, G.; Winter, C. An exploratory study of factors influencing campers level of loyalty to camping sites in the tourism industry. In Proceedings of the 19th Australian and New Zealand Academy of Management Conference (ANZAM 2005), Canberra, Australia, 7–10 December 2005. [Google Scholar]
  17. Podovac, M.; Milojica, V. Determining the travel risk perception and travel behavior of serbian residents during the post-pandemic period. Tour. Int. Sci. Conf. Vrnjačka Banja-TISC 2022, 7, 448–466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Zorlu, K.; Tuncer, M.; Taşkın, G.A. The effect of COVID-19 on tourists’ attitudes and travel intentions: An empirical study on camping/glamping tourism in Turkey during COVID-19. J. Hosp. Tour. Insights, 2022; ahead-of-print. [Google Scholar]
  19. Dolnicar, S. Understanding barriers to leisure travel: Tourist fears as a marketing basis. J. Vacat. Mark. 2005, 11, 197–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Lehto, X.; Douglas, A.C.; Park, J. Mediating the Effects of Natural Disasters on Travel Intention. J. Travel Tour. Mark. 2008, 23, 29–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Möller, C.; Wang, J.; Nguyen, H.T. #Strongerthanwinston: Tourism and crisis communication through Facebook following tropical cyclones in Fiji. Tour. Manag. 2018, 69, 272–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Yang, E.C.L.; Khoo-Lattimore, C.; Arcodia, C. A systematic literature review of risk and gender research in tourism. Tour. Manag. 2017, 58, 89–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Chua, B.-L.; Al-Ansi, A.; Lee, M.J.; Han, H. Impact of health risk perception on avoidance of international travel in the wake of a pandemic. Curr. Issues Tour. 2020, 24, 985–1002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Fuchs, G.; Reichel, A. Tourist Destination Risk Perception: The Case of Israel. J. Hosp. Leis. Mark. 2006, 14, 83–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Rittichainuwat, B.N.; Chakraborty, G. Perceived travel risks regarding terrorism and disease: The case of Thailand. Tour. Manag. 2009, 30, 410–418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Rittichainuwat, B.; Nelson, R.; Rahmafitria, F. Applying the perceived probability of risk and bias toward optimism: Implications for travel decisions in the face of natural disasters. Tour. Manag. 2018, 66, 221–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Wang, J.; Liu-Lastres, B.; Ritchie, B.W.; Mills, D.J. Travellers’ self-protections against health risks: An application of the full Protection Motivation Theory. Ann. Tour. Res. 2019, 78, 102743. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Yıldırım, M.; Geçer, E.; Akgül, Ö. The impacts of vulnerability, perceived risk, and fear on preventive behaviours against COVID-19. Psychol. Health Med. 2020, 26, 35–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Kővári, I.; Zimányi, K. Safety and security in the age of global tourism. Appl. Stud. Agribus. Commer. 2010, 4, 67–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Wang, J.; Liu-Lastres, B.; Ritchie, B.W.; Pan, D.-Z. Risk reduction and adventure tourism safety: An extension of the risk perception attitude framework (RPAF). Tour. Manag. 2019, 74, 247–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Ritchie, B.W.; Jiang, Y. A review of research on tourism risk, crisis and disaster management: Launching the annals of tourism research curated collection on tourism risk, crisis and disaster management. Ann. Tour. Res. 2019, 79, 102812. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Mansfeld, Y.; Jonas, A.; Cahaner, L. Between Tourists’ Faith and Perceptions of Travel Risk. J. Travel Res. 2014, 55, 395–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Barbieri, D.M.; Lou, B.; Passavanti, M.; Hui, C.; Hoff, I.; Lessa, D.A.; Sikka, G.; Chang, K.; Gupta, A.; Fang, K.; et al. Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on mobility in ten countries and associated perceived risk for all transport modes. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0245886. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Hunt, J.D. Image—A Factor in Tourism; ProQuest Dissertations Publishing: Fort Collins, CO, USA, 1971. [Google Scholar]
  35. Su, L.; Lian, Q.; Huang, Y. How do tourists’ attribution of destination social responsibility motives impact trust and intention to visit? The moderating role of destination reputation. Tour. Manag. 2019, 77, 103970. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Baloglu, S.; McCleary, K.W. A model of destination image formation. Ann. Tour. Res. 1999, 26, 868–897. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Kim, S.-E.; Lee, K.Y.; Shin, S.I.; Yang, S.-B. Effects of tourism information quality in social media on destination image formation: The case of Sina Weibo. Inf. Manag. 2017, 54, 687–702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Gartner, W.C. Image formation process. J. Travel Tour. Mark. 1994, 2, 191–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Bigné Alcañiz, E.; Sánchez García, I.; Sanz Blas, S. The functional-psychological continuum in the cognitive image of a destination: A confirmatory analysis. Tour. Manag. 2009, 30, 715–723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Stylos, N.; Andronikidis, A. Exploring the cognitive image of a tourism destination. Tourismos 2013, 8, 77–97. [Google Scholar]
  41. Kim, H.; Chen, J. Destination image formation process: A holistic model. J. Vacat. Mark. 2015, 22, 154–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Anand, P.; Holbrook, M.B.; Stephens, D. The Formation of Affective Judgments: The Cognitive-Affective Model versus the Independence Hypothesis. J. Consum. Res. 1988, 15, 386–391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  43. Stern, E.; Krakover, S. The Formation of a Composite Urban Image. Geogr. Anal. 1993, 25, 130–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Stylos, N.; Vassiliadis, C.A.; Bellou, V.; Andronikidis, A. Destination images, holistic images and personal normative beliefs: Predictors of intention to revisit a destination. Tour. Manag. 2016, 53, 40–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Perpiña, L.; Camprubí, R.; Prats, L. Destination Image versus Risk Perception. J. Hosp. Tour. Res. 2017, 43, 3–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Bakker, I.; Van Der Voordt, T.; Vink, P.; De Boon, J. Pleasure, Arousal, Dominance: Mehrabian and Russell revisited. Curr. Psychol. 2014, 33, 405–421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Chew, E.Y.T.; Jahari, S.A. Destination image as a mediator between perceived risks and revisit intention: A case of post-disaster Japan. Tour. Manag. 2014, 40, 382–393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Lepp, A.; Gibson, H.; Lane, C. Image and perceived risk: A study of Uganda and its official tourism website. Tour. Manag. 2011, 32, 675–684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Lepp, A.; Gibson, H. Sensation seeking and tourism: Tourist role, perception of risk and destination choice. Tour. Manag. 2008, 29, 740–750. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Qi, C.X.; Gibson, H.J.; Zhang, J.J. Perceptions of Risk and Travel Intentions: The Case of China and the Beijing Olympic Games. J. Sport Tour. 2009, 14, 43–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. Beerli, A.; Martín, J.D. Factors influencing destination image. Ann. Tour. Res. 2004, 31, 657–681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Lee, T.H. A Structural Model to Examine How Destination Image, Attitude, and Motivation Affect the Future Behavior of Tourists. Leis. Sci. 2009, 31, 215–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Picazo, P.; Moreno-Gil, S. Analysis of the projected image of tourism destinations on photographs: A literature review to prepare for the future. J. Vacat. Mark. 2017, 25, 3–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Pike, S. Destination image analysis—A review of 142 papers from 1973 to 2000. Tour. Manag. 2002, 23, 541–549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Gursoy, D.; McCleary, K.W. An integrative model of tourists’ information search behavior. Ann. Tour. Res. 2004, 31, 353–373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Gursoy, D.; McCleary, K.W. Travelers’ Prior Knowledge and its Impact on their Information Search Behavior. J. Hosp. Tour. Res. 2004, 28, 66–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Lapage, W.F.; Cormier, P.L. Images of camping—Barriers to participation? J. Travel Res. 1977, 15, 21–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Yoo, J.W.; Park, J.; Lee, J.H.; Park, H. Recovering from the COVID-19 shock: The role of risk perception and perceived effectiveness of protective measures on travel intention during the pandemic. Serv. Bus. 2022, 16, 557–580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Asnawi, M.A. Do Social Media, Tourism Destination Image and Product Destination Play a Significant Role in Influencing Tourist Decision Making? Evidence from Local Destination in North Sulawesi. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Management, Education, Social Science, Economics and Technology (ICMEST), Jakarta, Indonesia, 26 July 2022. [Google Scholar]
  60. Azeez, Z.A. The Impact of Destination Image on Tourist Behavior: Karbala as a Case Study. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. Plan. 2021, 16, 1287–1298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Qu, H.; Kim, L.H.; Im, H.H. A model of destination branding: Integrating the concepts of the branding and destination image. Tour. Manag. 2011, 32, 465–476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 14 15090 g001 550
Figure 1. Conceptual model.
Figure 1. Conceptual model.
Sustainability 14 15090 g001
Sustainability 14 15090 g002 550
Figure 2. The mediating effect of destination image between perceived risk and campsite selection (*** p < 0.001, * p < 0.05).
Figure 2. The mediating effect of destination image between perceived risk and campsite selection (*** p < 0.001, * p < 0.05).
Sustainability 14 15090 g002
Sustainability 14 15090 g003 550
Figure 3. The interaction between destination image and camping knowledge on campsite selection.
Figure 3. The interaction between destination image and camping knowledge on campsite selection.
Sustainability 14 15090 g003
Table
Table 1. Samples overview.
Table 1. Samples overview.
Demographic Dimension FrequencyDemographic Dimension Frequency
Gendermale81 (24.9%)Education backgroundSpecialized and below33 (10.1%)
Female244 (75.1%)Bachelor’s degree168 (51.7%)
Revenue<4000 CNY237 (72.9%)Postgraduate and above124 (38.2%)
4000–8000 CNY50 (18.5%)CareerStudent239 (73.5%)
>8000 CNY28 (8.6%)Worker65 (20.0%)
Camping ExperienceYes93 (28.6%)Other21 (6.5%)
No232 (71.4%)
Table
Table 2. Means (standard deviations) and differences for each variable on gender.
Table 2. Means (standard deviations) and differences for each variable on gender.
Male Female F
MSDMSD
Camping knowledge20.158.0116.045.6025.99 ***
Perceived risk4.611.464.921.223.54
Destination image4.501.464.321.181.30
Campsite selection5.001.965.711.4012.62 ***
Notes: *** p < 0.001.
Table
Table 3. Correlation matrix for each variable.
Table 3. Correlation matrix for each variable.
12345
1. Gender-
2. Camping knowledge−0.273 **-
3. Campsite selection0.194 **−0.223 **-
4. Destination image−0.0630.0440.385 **-
5. Perceived risk0.1040.0590.287 **0.513 **-
Notes: ** p < 0.01.
Table
Table 4. Results of the mediating effect of destination image.
Table 4. Results of the mediating effect of destination image.
VariablesEffectBELL
95% CI		UL
95%
Destination image0.2030.0410.1260.285
Notes. Control variables: age, gender, married, education level, income. Bootstrap sample. size = 5000. BE: BOOT ERRPR; CL: confidence interval; LL: lower limit; UL: upper limit.
Table
Table 5. Bootstrap results of the camping knowledge.
Table 5. Bootstrap results of the camping knowledge.
ModeratorBoot Indirect EffectBoot SEBC 95% CI
LowerUpper
Camping Knowledge
M − 1SD0.13190.04290.05410.2234
M0.19700.03880.12470.2753
M + 1SD0.26210.05090.16380.3643
Notes: Number of Bootstrap samples: 5000, SE: Stand error, BC CI: Bias-corrected confidence intervals.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Xu, X.; Wei, A.; Liu, Y.; Xia, T. The Relationship between Perceived Risks and Campsite Selection in the COVID-19 Era. Sustainability 2022, 14, 15090. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142215090

AMA Style

Xu X, Wei A, Liu Y, Xia T. The Relationship between Perceived Risks and Campsite Selection in the COVID-19 Era. Sustainability. 2022; 14(22):15090. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142215090

Chicago/Turabian Style

Xu, Xing, Aonan Wei, Yuchan Liu, and Tiansheng Xia. 2022. "The Relationship between Perceived Risks and Campsite Selection in the COVID-19 Era" Sustainability 14, no. 22: 15090. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142215090

APA Style

Xu, X., Wei, A., Liu, Y., & Xia, T. (2022). The Relationship between Perceived Risks and Campsite Selection in the COVID-19 Era. Sustainability, 14(22), 15090. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142215090

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