The assessment of risk tolerance of Hungarian travellers towards abroad trips

Solyomfi, Andrea Hanna; Skačkauskienė, Ilona; Borisov, Igor; Vinogradov, Szergej Article The assessment of risk tolerance of Hungarian travellers towards abroad trips Journal of Business Economics and Management (JBEM) Provided in Cooperation with: Vilnius Gediminas Technical University (VILNIUS TECH) Suggested Citation: Solyomfi, Andrea Hanna; Skačkauskienė, Ilona; Borisov, Igor; Vinogradov, Szergej (2024) : The assessment of risk tolerance of Hungarian travellers towards abroad trips, Journal of Business Economics and Management (JBEM), ISSN 2029-4433, Vilnius Gediminas Technical University, Vilnius, Vol. 25, Iss. 1, pp. 104-128, https://doi.org/10.3846/jbem.2024.20459 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/317671 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/ licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Vilnius Gediminas Technical University ISSN 1611-1699 / eISSN 2029-4433 2024 Volume 25 Issue 1 Pages 104–128 https://doi.org/10.3846/jbem.2024.20459 THE ASSESSMENT OF RISK TOLERANCE OF HUNGARIAN TRAVELLERS TOWARDS ABROAD TRIPS Andrea Hanna SOLYOMFI 1, Ilona SKAČKAUSKIENĖ 2, Igor BORISOV 3, Szergej VINOGRADOV 4 1Doctoral School of Economic and Regional Sciences, Hungarian University of Agricultural and Life Sciences, Páter Károly u. 1, H-2100 Gödöllő, Hungary 2Management Department, Vilnius Gediminas Technical University, Saulėtekio al. 11, Vilnius, Lithuania 3Centre for Circular Economy Analysis and Knowledge, Hungarian University of Agricultural and Life Sciences Páter Károly u. 1, H-2100 Gödöllő, Hungary 4Institute of Digital Studies, Budapest Metropolitan University, Nagy Lajos király útja 1-9, 1148 Budapest, Hungary Article History: Abstract. This study identified and examined significant factors affecting the risk tolerance of Hungarian travellers towards abroad trips. Data for the empirical research was derived from an online survey. The final questionnaire included 45 statements describing aspects of travel safety and travel preferences. There was a total of 496 responses, which enabled them to be analyzed. A structural equation modeling (SEM) approach was used to develop the model of risk tolerance assessment. As a result of the study, physical security, price sensitivity, mood-driven factor, and destination’s image in the media may be considered as substitutes for determining travellers’ risk tolerance. This research contributes to the body of knowledge by supporting the proposition that inner personality traits and image factors may influence tourism preferences, suggesting future studies should use a multivariate approach to explain and predict tourism choices. Tourism managers and private companies operating in this sector can find the results of this study very helpful in planning and promoting tourism to risky destinations. ■ received 02 June 2023 ■ accepted 27 September 2023 Keywords: perceived risk, risky destinations, mood-driven, image in the media, price sensitivity, travellers’ risk tolerance. JEL Classification: Z32, Z33, C33. Online supplementary material: Supporting information for this paper is available as online supplementary material at https://doi.org/10.3846/jbem.2024.20459 Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected] JOURNAL of BUSINESS ECONOMICS & MANAGEMENT 1. Introduction In recent years, we have witnessed an increase in the perception that an individual is more likely to be a victim of terrorism, an international conflict, or a health hazard. Tourism may suffer serious consequences as a result of an increasing perception that the world is a more dangerous place to live and travel (World Economic Forum, 2022). Thus, if the tourism industry is to be prosperous, researchers need to increase their understanding of risk perception, the constituent elements of its formation among potential tourists, and how to manage it (Kiyak & Labanauskaite, 2020). Journal of Business Economics and Management, 2024, 25(1), 104–128 105 The literature on tourism risk has been criticized for the lack of a theoretical foundation and thereby limiting the creation of new knowledge (Yang et al., 2017; Wang et al., 2019; Cheer et al., 2021). It is apparent that a significant research gap exists in the review literature regarding crisis management, risk management, and disaster management research conducted in the hospitality and tourism sectors, particularly in the digital era; and such a research need is becoming increasingly important following modern challenges such as COVID-19 (Wut et al., 2021) or the Ukrainian conflict (Horiachko, 2021). Therefore, in light of this, we are particularly interested in identifying and categorizing the underlying risk factors associated with travel destinations and tourism activities in different contexts. The use of valid and reliable scales to assess the level of tourists’ risk tolerance and its impact on tourist behavior. An investigation into how uncertainty, worry, fear and anxiety influence the choice of tourist destinations and how they influence tourists’ risk tolerance. The ways in which these factors could be mitigated. There are some factors that can influence tourists’ choice of destination, even when there are security risks involved. Some tourists may be more risk-affine or risk-averse than others, depending on their personal and psychological characteristics, as well as their cultural orientations (Ruiz-Sancho et al., 2021; Rahman et al., 2021). And vice versa, some tourists may be motivated by the cultural or experiential aspects of a destination, regardless of the potential hazards (Mitchell & Vassos, 1997; Yang et al., 2015; Karl, 2016; Jackson, 2001). As well, tourists can choose a destination despite the obvious security risks if they perceive the benefits to outweigh the costs, or if they have strategies to cope with the risks. Based on these arguments, we formulate the concept of “Traveller’s Risk Tolerance” and place it at the center of our research model. The tourist’s risk tolerance can be viewed as a quantitative assessment of tourism security and how it affects tourists’ purchase intention and revisit intention. Detailed discussion and final definitions of this issue will be provided in the corresponding sub-chapter, but for now it can be mentioned briefly again that, based on our literature analysis there is no consensus on the common dimensions of tourism risk tolerance and how it can be measured. Moreover, there is a lack of theoretical foundation to explain the relationship between tourism risk perception and predictors such as psychological and behavioural aspects of travel safety, lack of risk control, infrastructure security and negative destination image in the media. By attempting to fill in these gaps, this study is unique and differs from previous studies in a similar vein. As a result of the above reasoning, it was determined that the major purpose of this study would be to identify and examine factors influencing travellers’ risk tolerance. The following research questions have been formulated in this context: 1. What are the significant factors that determine and influence tourists’ decisions regardless of perceived and potential risks? 2. How influential are each of the elements identified for choosing directions despite obvious risks? The document is structured as follows. The next section presents a literary basis for 11 constructions that are intended to develop a research model. The five main hypotheses are then presented with their arguments and justifications. Afterwards, a detailed explanation of the methodology and the empirical results is provided. Lastly, we summarize and analyze our observations before drawing conclusions. 106 A. H. Solyomfi et al. The assessment of risk tolerance of Hungarian travellers towards abroad trips 2. Literature review This section discusses a few literary sources that contribute to constructing a study model of travellers’ risk tolerance. 2.1. Traveller’s risk tolerance High risk tolerance is an essential quality of global travel and cosmopolitanism, as well as the solid foundation of personal resilience (Riefler et al., 2012; Veréb et al., 2020). Trying to achieve absolute safety at a tourist destination is an ambitious but unattainable goal, as there are always unpredictable and uncontrollable factors that may pose risks or threats to tourists and hosts, such as natural disasters, accidents, diseases, crime, terrorism, civil unrest (UN World Tourism Organization [UNWTO], 1997). At the same time, traveller’s risk tolerance may be important for travel planning and decision making, as it can affect the choice of destination, mode of transport, accommodation, activities, and preventive measures. As part of the framework of this topic, the following research initiatives are worth mentioning. A study conducted by Alan M. Williams and Vladimir Baláž (2013) examined how importance that travellers ascribe to specific types of tourism hazards and risk tolerance influences processes in travel and tourism. Zheng et al. (2021) examined how general public trust can mitigate perceived threat, fear, and travel avoidance after an outbreak of a pandemic. However, despite the fact that the topic is addressed in the studies mentioned and attempts are made to examine it from multiple perspectives, it is unfortunate that the authors fail to bring their reasoning to the final definitions. In any case, in light of the approaches described above, we are looking for ways to deal with unpleasant givens, as noted in the research objectives. Therefore, based on the previous studies and carefully selected items (supplementary information), for the purposes of this research, the travellers’ risk tolerance is defined as the extent to which they are willing to take on a higher-risk tourist destination based on either perception that the trip is safe, that the risks are under control, or that the positive benefits offset the risks in their subjective decisions. 2.2. Subjective safety perception A person’s internal feelings or perceptions of being safe or unsafe in a particular situation or environment is a subjective factor that can affect the traveller’s tolerance for risk. A traveller’s financial resources may influence their perception of safety, since they may enable them to access services and facilities of a higher quality or more secure nature. A study by Hasan et al. (2017) that reviewed the literature on tourist risk perceptions and revisited intention, and suggested that money-related risk is one of the key dimensions of perceived risk that affects tourist decision-making. Travellers’ self-confidence may also influence their perception of safety, since it may increase their resistance to illnesses, injuries, or exhaustion. They may therefore choose destinations that offer a greater degree of healthiness, sanitation, or relaxation, or they may avoid destinations that provide a lower level of these amenities. In the context of risk, it is important to focus on perceptions of a situation, since personal risk perceptions (i.e., subjective assessments of the negative consequences of an event or Journal of Business Economics and Management, 2024, 25(1), 104–128 107 choice as seen from an individual’s perspective) have been proven to be more important in determining choice than actual existing risks (Fuchs & Reichel, 2006; Karl, 2016). We selected three statements (supplementary information) that can provide the basis for subjective safety perceptions, such as personal characteristics, financial resources, health status, and inner preparedness, based on the fact that subjective safety perception can be defined as an individual’s internal feelings or beliefs regarding safety. 2.3. Information-seeking and planning behaviours of travellers Among the ways in which tourists can reduce the risks associated with traveling is to seek information (Wang et al., 2019). The information about a destination can be found in a variety of forms, such as brochures, advertisements in newspapers or travel magazines, television programs, radio broadcasts, or information on the Internet, which has been recognized as a more value-added and fast-reaching form of external information sources (Lin et al., 2009) and has greatly helped tourists make travel decisions and plan their trips. Particularly, social media websites including different types of consumer-generated content sites including blogs, wikis, social networks, YouTube, Twitter, Flickr, etc., are popular ones on which individuals can post information about their travel experiences but also for people to search for relevant information (Xiang & Gretzel, 2010). So, Information-seeking and planning behaviours of travellers can be seen as the actions that travellers take to obtain reliable and accurate information about the destination and to prepare for contingencies and emergencies before their travel. Following the logic of this literature, four statements (supplementary information) were selected as the basis for the appropriate dimension. 2.4. Travel safety preferences based on experience Generally, repeat and experienced travellers have a more positive impression of the destination because they have experienced the location and are substantially more knowledgeable about its conditions. Consequently, experienced travellers have lower risk perceptions, are more relaxed, and have fewer fears (Fuchs & Reichel, 2011). In contrast, tourists who have never visited the destination tend to develop a sense of uncertainty and risk based on exposure to media and other sources (Promsivapallop & Kannaovakun, 2017). Three statements were used in this study to explore personal preferences regarding travel safety (supplementary information). 2.5. Lack of physical risk control The topic “Lack of physical risk control” may closely relate to tourists’ uncontrolled situations with physical well-being (Jonas et al., 2011), such as health risks (Gray & Wilson, 2009; Novelli et al., 2018), political instability (Zbuchea, 2015; Ruan et al., 2017), and crime exposure (Pizam & Fleischer, 2002; Hall et al., 2004). Some of these risk factors are beyond the control of tourists because they are influenced by external factors and events in the destination country. This component of tourists’ risk perception has been explored through nine statements (supplementary information). 108 A. H. Solyomfi et al. The assessment of risk tolerance of Hungarian travellers towards abroad trips 2.6. Lack of cross-cultural risk control Lack of cross-cultural risk control for tourists is a topic that deals with the unexpected challenges tourists face when encountering different cultures and languages in their travel destinations. The sources of cross-cultural risk factors, such as language barriers, misunderstandings of cultural differences, and prejudices, can become a very serious source of problems and stressful situations on the spot (Yoo & Sohn, 2003; Hottola, 2004; Mancini-Cross et al., 2009; Lo et al., 2011). Because of this, oftentimes tourists choose destinations that have similar cultures to their own (Yang & Wong, 2012). In this study, three statements (supplementary information) were utilized to explore this aspect of tourists’ risk perception. 2.7. Perceived importance of security Health risks may occur at destinations where accommodations are of poor quality, hygiene and sanitation are inadequate, medical services are not well developed, and clean water is unavailable (World Health Organization [WHO], 2017). In terms of tourism infrastructure security, the physical aspect may be viewed as the protection of the tangible assets and facilities that are essential to the provision of quality and safe tourism services. As a result, it aims to prevent or mitigate potential physical damage. This may include logistical and travel security, secure accommodations, or the development of a system of public health institutions (see a.g. Khadaroo & Seetanah, 2014; Artuğer, 2015). Six statements (supplementary information) have been used to investigate this component of tourists’ risk perception. 2.8. Legal security The legal aspect of tourist infrastructure security refers to laws and regulations that aim to ensure the safety and protection of tourists, tourism facilities and services, and the environment from various threats and risks (Abaydeldinov & Kala, 2016). Among the issues that can be addressed by the legal aspect of tourist infrastructure security are: unifying and harmonizing the law regulation of tourism activities, such as contracts, liability, consumer protection, and taxation (Imbeah et al., 2020). The legal aspect of tourist infrastructure security may vary depending on the destination, the type of tourism, and the level of development. However, it is generally recognized that a sound legislative framework is vital for enhancing tourism competitiveness and sustainability in certain tourist directions (Tsviliy et al., 2021). In order to examine this component of tourists’ risk perception, three statements were used (supplementary information). 2.9. Price sensitivity factor Price sensitivity factors in choosing a tourism destination refer to the degree to which tourists are influenced by the prices of tourism products and services, such as flights, accommodation, tours, and activities, when deciding where to travel (Masiero & Nicolau, 2012). Price sensitivity may change depending on the type of tourism product or service. Some tourists may be more sensitive to flight prices than activity prices, while others may be the opposite, meaning they are more willing to pay a higher price for destinations or Journal of Business Economics and Management, 2024, 25(1), 104–128 109 products that offer greater value, quality, or uniqueness. Two statements (supplementary information) were used to explore price sensitivity as an aspect of tourists’ risk perception. 2.10. Mood-driven action As a factor in choosing tourism destinations, mood-driven behavior refers to the influence of tourists’ emotional states, such as happiness, excitement, boredom, or stress, on their travel decisions, including where to go, what to do, and how to spend their money (Lam & Hsu, 2006). In the absence of rational or planned considerations, mood-driven behavior can lead to spontaneous, unexpected, or impulsive decisions. Mood-driven behavior was examined as an aspect of tourists’ risk perception using two statements (supplementary information). 2.11. Negative destination’s image in the media The results of several studies have shown that people perceive risk more positively when they have more confidence in information sources and agencies (Amir et al., 2015; Cui et al., 2016). While uncoordinated and confusing messages, as well as sensational media coverage of the disaster, could adversely affect the image of the destination in a negative way (Kapuściński & Richards, 2016; Veréb et al., 2020). Tourist arrivals to direct destinations may decline due to prolonged negative media coverage. For instance, repeated kidnapping incidents in Sabah have negatively affected Malaysia’s tourism sector, in particular the number of tourists arriving (Som et al., 2015). Protracted media storms, which often follow the reporting of wellknown crimes, can have devastating effects on countries that rely on tourism as the largest economic driver (Brown, 2015). Using the above as a reference, five statements (supplementary information) have been chosen as part of this study, which will also assist in determining the degree of impact of this factor. Consequently, we were able to provide theoretical justifications for 11 of the elements that make up our research model. Then we can move on to the consideration of possible interactions between them, in accordance with the objectives of the research that we are conducting. 3. Research hypothesis development It is hoped that the introductory overview has made it clear that existing categorisations of influences on travellers’ perceptions of risk need to be explored, modified, and evaluated. In this section, each set of hypothetical statements will be discussed in greater detail. 3.1. Psychological and behavioural aspects of travel safety affects Traveller’s risk tolerance (H1) In formulating this hypothesis, the following three proposals, which have common characteristics, were considered. H1a: Subjective safety perception positively affects Traveller’s risk tolerance. 110 A. H. Solyomfi et al. The assessment of risk tolerance of Hungarian travellers towards abroad trips A study conducted by Meng et al. (2021) examined the relationship between COVID-19 risk perception, risk knowledge, and travel intention among Chinese travellers. It was revealed that one’s self-confidence or lack of confidence in one’s health status has an impact on destination choice. It has also been extensively cited and tested in numerous areas of research to prove the concept of “optimistic bias”. This is defined as the tendency for individuals to believe that they are less susceptible to negative experiences than others (Weinstein, 1989). An individual may, therefore, gradually and cautiously rely on one’s intrinsic cues in order to reduce feelings of risk as a result of the inherent knowledge being built (Brunel & Pichon, 2004). In this regard, it is assumed that “Subjective safety perception” can positively affect “Traveller’s risk tolerance”. H1b: Information-seeking and planning behaviours of travellers positively affects Traveller’s risk tolerance. Adding to the above description of the dimension, it can also be noted that travellers’ information-seeking and planning behaviors can assist them in adjusting their expectations and attitudes towards travel risks and in coping with uncertainty and ambiguity. Since it has been found that tourists’ sense of safety can be recognized from the way they process the information they receive, discuss, and store in their minds (Zou & Meng, 2020). Consequently, it is assumed that “Information-seeking and planning behaviours of travellersl” may positively impact “Traveller’s risk tolerance”. H1c: Travel safety preferences based on experience positively affects Traveller’s risk tolerance. While risk reductions for a first-time visit are primarily based upon external information search, those for repeat visits are built upon concrete personal visitation experience (Reid & Reid, 1993). Hales and Shams (1991) concluded that travellers’ previous travel experience may be an indicator of their current as well as future consumption patterns. As experiences increase, travellers may incrementally and behaviorally move toward a preferred, but riskier, holiday destination. At the same time, some of past research has an intention, but has not been able to finally determine whether prior visits to a particular geographical region or destination result in a lower level of perceived risk for the entire region (Williams & Baláž, 2013; Karl & Schmude, 2017). In this regard, it would be interesting to check the following assumption: “Travel safety preferences based on experience” may positively affect “Traveller’s risk tolerance”. The above assumptions can be combined thematically as related to the topic “Psychological and behavioural aspects of travel safety” by which we will mean the cognitive, emotional and action-oriented processes that travellers engage in before, during and after their travel to cope with the uncertainty and ambiguity of travel risks. Our argument, therefore, is as follows: Psychological and behavioural aspects of travel safety can be considered as an influential predictor to Traveller’s risk tolerance. Journal of Business Economics and Management, 2024, 25(1), 104–128 111 3.2. Lack of risk control affects Traveller’s risk tolerance (H2) One of the key factors affecting the choice of risky tourist destinations is the controllability of safety (Horiachko, 2021). In order to formulate the hypothesis related to it, two proposals with common characteristics were considered. H2a: Lack of physical risk control negatively affects Traveller’s risk tolerance. There are several factors that determine tourists’ feelings of physical safety and perceptions of destinations, including level of crime exposure (De Albuquerque & Mcelroy, 1999; Pizam & Fleischer, 2002; Hall et al., 2004), perceptions of health risks (Jonas et al., 2011) and political stability (Zbuchea, 2015; Ruan et al., 2017). In this regard, several studies have suggested that the risk factors that may affect tourists’ physical well-being are the most significant influencing factors of overall willingness to accept touristic risks (see e.g., Gray & Wilson, 2009). Therefore, it is assumed that “Lack of physical risk control” may have a negative impact on the “Traveller’s risk tolerance”. H2b: Lack of cross-cultural risk control negatively affects Traveller’s risk tolerance. Hottola (2004) and Yoo and Sohn (2003) claim that tourists may experience role conflicts, lack of confidence, and defensiveness when traveling overseas due to cultural differences and a lack of language proficiency. Since cultural distance may increase the level of uncertainty and risk faced by tourists in a foreign country, cultural similarity, on the other hand, can indicate the degree of comfort and familiarity tourists may experience (Liu, 2014). In this regard, tourists are more likely to select culturally similar countries as destinations, according to some studies (Mancini-Cross et al., 2009; Lo et al., 2011; Garamvölgyi & Rudnák, 2016; Douglas et al., 2023). Due to this, it is assumed that “Lack of cross-cultural risk control” might negatively affect “Traveller’s risk tolerance”. The assumptions above can be combined thematically as related to the topic “Lack of risk control”. In this context, we refer to travellers who fail to identify, assess or take action to minimize or eliminate potential health, safety, and well-being threats arising from their exposure to environmental, biological, and cultural factors in their destinations as a result of their exposure. Our argument, therefore, is as follows: “Lack of risk control” can be considered as an influential predictor of travellers’ risk tolerance. 3.3. The development of infrastructure security affects Traveller’s risk tolerance (H3) The hypothesis was formulated using the following two proposals that share common characteristics. H3a: The perceived importance of security negatively affects Traveller’s risk tolerance. In Yang and Nair’s (2014) review of risk in tourism, the authors assert that risk and risk perception are multidimensional concepts related to issues such as uncertainty avoidance, worry, anxiety, and fear. Thus, individuals who have a high degree of uncertainty avoidance refrain from engaging in activities whose outcomes may not be clearly predictable. From a risk-taking propensity context, this could mean tourists may decide not to travel to desti- 118 A. H. Solyomfi et al. The assessment of risk tolerance of Hungarian travellers towards abroad trips Table 2. Discriminant validity based on the Fornell and Larcker criterion, n = 496 (source: author’s research) RSKT SFTYP INFSK EXPR PHRSK CLRSK GESEC LGSEC PRSEN MOOD MEDIA RSKT 0.713 SFTYP –0.126 0.610 INFSK –0.123 0.137 0.625 EXPR –0.176 0.135 0.314 0.710 PHRSK –0.038 0.231 0.213 0.153 0.766 CLRSK –0.158 0.251 0.204 0.279 0.417 0.659 GESEC –0.283 0.206 0.370 0.410 0.248 0.360 0.718 LGSEC –0.158 0.282 0.346 0.262 0.334 0.328 0.593 0.693 PRSEN 0.094 0.100 0.010 0.038 0.158 0.083 0.095 0.076 0.906 MOOD 0.323 –0.007 –0.262 –0.180 –0.138 –0.152 –0.186 –0.029 0.106 0.774 MEDIA –0.242 0.170 0.208 0.246 0.313 0.385 0.256 0.200 0.183 –0.167 0.675 Note: RSKT = Traveller’s risk tolerance, SFTYP = Subjective safety perception, INFSK = Information-seeking and planning behaviors of travellers, EXPR = Travel safety preferences based on experience, PHRSK = Lack of physical risk control, CLRSK = Lack of cross-cultural risk control, GESEC = Security of general infrastructure, LGSEC = Legal security, PRSEN = Price sensitivity, MOOD = Mood-driven action, MEDIA = Negative destination’s image in the media. Journal of Business Economics and Management, 2024, 25(1), 104–128 119 travel-related risk-taking propensity. The effect of safety-conscious action based on information acquisition and experience acquisition cannot be confirmed by the results of the structural model. The results obtained for the structural model hypotheses show that two of the five hypotheses were fully and one partially proven (Table 3). The hypothesis H1 on safety awareness in tourism, according to which safety-conscious action reduces risk-taking propensity, was rejected. Travelers’ subjective safety perception has no significant effect on their risk tolerance (β= –0.076, p = 0.148). Safety awareness based on information acquisition has no significant effect on risk tolerance decisions related to travel arrangements (β = 0.063, p = 0.230). Neither the effect of travel safety preferences based on experience could be demonstrated (β = –0.045, p = 0.333). Table 3. Evaluation of hypotheses based on SEM results, n = 496 (source: authors’ research) Hypothesis Standardized regression coefficient (beta) S.E. p-value Result Conclusion H1a. Subjective safety perception→ Traveller’s risk tolerance –0.076 0.066 0.148 Subjective safety perception does not significantly affect the traveller’s risk tolerance. H1 is not supported Figure 2. Structural model corresponding to the conceptual model, n = 496 (source: authors’ research) χ2/df = 2.149; CFI = 0.918; TLI = 0.906; RMSEA (90% CI) = 0.048 (0.045–0.052) 120 A. H. Solyomfi et al. The assessment of risk tolerance of Hungarian travellers towards abroad trips Hypothesis Standardized regression coefficient (beta) S.E. p-value Result Conclusion H1b. Informationseeking and planning behaviours of travellers → Traveller’s risk tolerance 0.063 0.069 0.230 Travellers’ informationseeking and planning behavior has no significant impact on their risk tolerance. H1c. Travel safety preferences based on expe rience → Traveller’s risk tolerance –0.045 0.027 0.333 The effect of expe riencebased security awareness does not significantly affect the traveller’s risk tolerance. H2a. Lack of physical risk control → Traveller’s risk tolerance 0.125 0.047 0.007 The difficulty of controlling direct (physical) risk positively affects the traveller’s risk tole rance. The effect is small. H2 is not supported H2b. Lack of crosscultural risk control → Traveller’s risk tolerance –0.010 0.043 0.969 A stronger perception of Lack of cross-cultural risk control related to travel (e.g. language difficulties) does not significantly affect the traveller’s risk tolerance. H3a. Perceived importance of security→ Traveller’s risk tolerance –0.228 0.071 <0.001 The perception of the importance of security has a weak negative impact on the traveller’s risk tolerance. H3 is only partially supported H3b. Legal security → Traveller’s risk tolerance –0.031 0.050 0.547 The perception of the importance of Legal security cannot be justified and its significant impact on the traveller’s risk tolerance cannot be justified. H4a. Price sensitivity factor → Traveller’s risk tolerance 0.128 0.032 0.005 Price sensitivity has a weak positive impact on traveller’s risk tolerance. H4 is supported Continued Table 3 Journal of Business Economics and Management, 2024, 25(1), 104–128 121 Hypothesis Standardized regression coefficient (beta) S.E. p-value Result Conclusion H4b. Mood-driven action → Traveller’s risk tolerance 0.316 0.068 <0.001 Mood-driven action has a moderately strong impact on traveller’s risk tolerance. H5. Negative destination’s image in the media → Traveller’s risk tolerance –0.236 0.040 <0.001 Weak negative destination’s image in the media impact on risk willingness for travel can be justified. H5 is supported The increased consideration of physical (direct) risks to physical health and well-being does not reduce, but rather increases, the traveller’s risk tolerance (β = 0.125, p = 0.007). This can be explained by the fact that Hungarian travelers choose destinations with low or medium physical risks (supplementary information). More serious consideration of lack of cross-cultural risk control from potential language difficulties and the lack of formal diplomatic representation does not significantly reduce the risk appetite for travel planning (β = –0.010, p = 0.969). On this basis, hypothesis H2 is rejected. The perceived importance of security is justified as a factor reducing risk-taking willingness for overseas trips (β = –0.228, <0.001). However, the higher importance attached to legal security does not significantly reduce risk tolerance among Hungarian travellers (β= –0.031, p = 0.547). Hypothesis H3 is only partially accepted. Hypothesis H4 is fully supported: price sensitivity factor (β = 0.128, p = 0.005) and mood-driven action (β = 0.316, p < 0.001) have a demonstrable positive effect on risk-taking in travel decisions. Negative messages in the media can be shown to reduce the risk-taking propensity in travel decisions (β= –0.236, p < 0.001), thus hypothesis H5 is confirmed. 6. Discussion It has been observed that physical risk control affects travellers’ risk tolerance. This result is generally consistent with empirical studies that examine the effect of lack of physical risk control on tourist arrivals (see e.g., Pizam & Fleischer, 2002; Polas et al., 2022). However, it is also important to note that the intention to change travel plans is only slightly associated with physical risk control. This may be explained by the fact that isolated, poorly controlled risk episodes have little long-term impact on visitation but have a greater impact in the short run. In the long run, stable regions can be more attractive to both service providers and tourists (see e.g., Kozak et al., 2007). Due to this circumstance, the second hypothesis, which also includes this assumption, is considered unproven. End of Table 3 122 A. H. Solyomfi et al. The assessment of risk tolerance of Hungarian travellers towards abroad trips Also, it should be noted that the assumption that a general infrastructure’s security affects travellers’ risk tolerance has been proven correct. Indeed, risk is not just one thing, but many things that make people feel unsure, worried, anxious, or scared. Some people prefer not to undertake activities that may result in unexpected outcomes. They might avoid traveling to places where tourism facilities are not well developed, such as transportation or accommodation. It’s harder for them to predict what’s going to happen on vacation in such places (Karl, 2016) and this aspect of the situation in the context of the study has turned out to be significant for Hungarian tourists. At the same time, this effect, which is part of the third hypothesis, cannot be called significant and predominant. Consequently, the hypothesis as a whole was rejected. According to the fourth hypothesis, the price sensitivity factor and the mood-driven factor are the sums of two non-risk factors in the presented research model. The results obtained support the conclusion that it is fully proven. This is quite consistent with previous proposals in this regard. Sönmez and Graefe, for example, have conducted risk analyses and final decisions concerning destination choices (1998, p. 125) stating that “potential tourists select the destination which best matches their needs by offering the most benefits for the least cost (or risk)”. The general logic of consumers behavior in this case: neglecting other factors consumer will pay more for a product based solely on its price, while ignoring other potential differences (Kah et al., 2021). In the context of considering the fourth hypothesis of the study, this can also be associated with a general tendency not to burden yourself with the analysis of any risks when making a decision about a trip. For whatever reason, or against, but as we have already mentioned, this is a reality in the deciding processes. Related explanations have also been proposed by researchers regarding the effect of the mood factor. As a form of leisure, tourism may be characterized by pleasure, novelty, change, voluntariness, and non-utility. For some people leisure travel experiences are often defined in juxtaposition to everything routine and boring, as cathartic breaks enhanced by novelty, fun, recreation, situational disinhibition, license for thrills, and liminality/liminoidity (Berdychevsky & Gibson, 2015; Qiao et al., 2021). Also pondering reasons why some individuals have higher levels of risk-taking propensity than others, Zuckerman construed his “sensation seeking” as “a trait defined by the seeking of varied, novel, complex, and intense sensations and experiences, and the willingness to take physical, social, legal, and financial risks for the sake of such experience” (2007, p. 49). Last but not least, the factor of a negative image of the destination in the media was quite predictable. Thus, the fifth hypothesis was fully proved. Evidence suggests that destination image factors are more influential than real risk factors in determining travel intentions. In addition to the authors (see e.g., Lepp & Gibson, 2008; Amara et al., 2012; Keim & Somerville, 2017; Veréb et al., 2020; Pandey & Joshi, 2021). 7. Conclusions This study contributes theoretically to examining the empirical significance of existing studies and provides new insights into understanding destination choice from a risk acceptance Journal of Business Economics and Management, 2024, 25(1), 104–128 123 perspective. According to the study, physical security, price sensitivity, mood-driven factor, and destination’s image in the media can be considered as substitutes for determining travellers’ risk tolerance. Psychological and behavioral aspects, lack of cross-cultural risk control, and legal security did not significantly influence the key study dimension. Although the study yielded significant outcomes, it has limitations. Firstly, the results do not reflect possible changes in perceptions of safety and risk over time. Depending on when the data were collected, there is a possibility that the results might vary. As well, respondents may change their minds due to a variety of factors while they are actually making risky decisions. For a more comprehensive understanding of the impact of risk tolerance on destination choice, additional factors need to be tested as potential moderators. Although the above limitations reduce the generalizability of the findings, they do not reduce the value of demonstrating the approach that can be taken to analyze travel risk perception and tolerance for it. A few considerations about the future development of this topic are also worthy of mention. Since this study explored the perceived risk of tourists from a general perspective, its conclusions may be limited for comparison with other studies of similar nature. A future study may examine alternative methods that could include more choice alternatives and provide a more accurate representation of research aspects. A potential avenue for future research would therefore be to repeat this study by incorporating a number of factors: familiarity; typology of visitors based on their motivations; distribution according to demographic characteristics of visitors, such as party composition and income; and personality types. Analyzing such independent variables in relation to risk perceptions may facilitate understanding the role they play in variances. Considering received results in practical terms could be very useful for public managers involved in the planning and promotion of tourism, as well as for private companies operating in this sector. This research can be applied to market segmentation, marketing strategies, and a better understanding of who in this world of increasing turmoil is likely to follow in which direction. Considering that mood-driven behavior is quite obvious attributes for “sensation seekers”, the achievement target groups can be identified as thrill and adventure seekers, experience seekers, boredom susceptibility, and disinhibitive individuals. It is therefore logical for marketers to tailor their advertising messages to the cultural preferences of Hungarian tourists. To appeal to mood-driven factors, a number of strategies could be developed. Also of great importance is the practicality of the find in terms of price sensitivity. In this vein, we have to agree with the statement that tourism, like other economic activities, flourishes most effectively when it fits into the context of general economic policies and programs. For example, in 2011, the Japanese government announced a campaign of free flight tickets worth 1 billion Yen to revive tourism after the Fukushima incident, which resulted in an abrupt drop in leisure tourists. Based on the findings of this study, this kind of practice is strongly substantiated. Media sensationalism can exacerbate risk misperceptions, creating unreasonable concerns among potential travellers, resulting in significant anxiety over the long term. Regarding this matter, it can be suggested that marketers should provide tourists with more risk-reduction opportunities (e.g., more information about a destination) to reduce travellers’ stress levels. 124 A. H. Solyomfi et al. The assessment of risk tolerance of Hungarian travellers towards abroad trips References Abaydeldinov, Y., & Kala, N. (2016). International legal aspects of tourism activity: International treaties analysis. Journal of Advanced Research in Law and Economics, 7(4(18)), 714–720. https://doi.org/10.14505/jarle.v7.4(18).01 Amara, D., El Samadicy, A., & Ragheb, M. (2012). Tourists’ risk aversion and willingness to take risks: the case of tourists visiting Egypt after 25th January revolution. In 6th world conference for graduate research in tourism, hospitality and leisure (Vol. 22). Amir, A. F., Ismail, M. N. I., & See, T. P. (2015). Sustainable tourist environment: Perception of international women travelers on safety and security in Kuala Lumpur. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 168, 123–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.10.218 Artuğer, S. (2015). The effect of risk perceptions on tourists’ revisit intentions. European Journal of Business and Management, 7(2), 36–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2007.08.002 Baumgartner, H., & Homburg, C. (1996). Applications of structural equation modeling in marketing and consumer research: A review. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 13(2), 139–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-8116(95)00038-0 Berdychevsky, L., & Gibson, H. (2015). Women’s sexual sensation seeking and risk taking in leisure travel. Journal of Leisure Research, 47(5), 621–646. https://doi.org/10.18666/jlr-2015-v47-i5-5446 Brown, C. B. (2015). Tourism, crime and risk perception: An examination of broadcast media’s framing of negative Aruban sentiment in the Natalee Holloway case and its impact on tourism demand. Tourism Management Perspectives, (16), 266–277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2014.12.001 Brunel, O., & Pichon, P. E. (2004). Food-related riskreduction strategies: Purchasing and consumption processes. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 3(4), 360–374. https://doi.org/10.1002/cb.148 Byrne, B. M. (2016). Structural equation modelling with AMOS: basic concepts, applications, and programming (2nd ed.). Routledge. Cheer, J. M., Lapointe, D., Mostafanezhad, M., & Jamal, T. (2021). Global tourism in crisis: Conceptual frameworks for research and practice. Journal of Tourism Futures, 7(3), 278–294. Cortina, J. M. (1993). What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(1), 98–104. Cui, F., Liu, Y., Chang, Y., Duan, J., & Li, J. (2016). An overview of tourism risk perception. Natural Hazards, 82, 643–658. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-016-2208-1 De Albuquerque, K., & Mcelroy, J. (1999). Tourism and crime in the Caribbean. Annals of Tourism Research, 26(4), 968–984. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-7383(99)00031-6 Douglas, A., Hoogendoorn, G., & Richards, G. (2023). Activities as the critical link between motivation and destination choice in cultural tourism. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Insights. https://doi.org/10.1108/JHTI-09-2022-0442 Eisinga, R., Grotenhuis, M. T., & Pelzer, B. (2013). The reliability of a two–item scale: Pearson, Cronbach, or Spearman–Brown? International Journal of Public Health, 58, 637–642. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00038–012–0416–3 Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, (18), 39–50. Fuchs, G., & Reichel, A. (2006). Tourist destination risk perception: The case of Israel. Journal of Hospitality & Leisure Marketing, 14(2), 83–108. Fuchs, G., & Reichel, A. (2011). An exploratory inquiry into destination risk perceptions and risk reduction strategies of first time vs. repeat visitors to a highly volatile destination. Tourism Management, 32, 266–276. Garamvölgyi, J., & Rudnák, I. (2016). Cultural Intelligence: Key influences. Social Space = Przestrzen Spoleczna, 2, 1–19. Gozgor, G., Lau, C. K. M., Zeng, Y., & Lin, Z. (2019). The effectiveness of the legal system and inbound tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 76, 24–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2019.03.003 Journal of Business Economics and Management, 2024, 25(1), 104–128 125 Gray, J. M., & Wilson, M. A. (2009). The relative risk perception of travel hazards. Environment and Behavior, 41(2), 185–204. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916507311898 Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2009). Multivariate data analysis (7 ed.). Pearson. Hales, C., & Shams, H. (1991). Cautious incremental consumption: A neglected consumer risk reduction strategy. European Journal of Marketing, 25(7), 7–21. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090569110144197 Hall, C. M., Timothy, D. J., & Duval, D. T. (2004). Security and tourism. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 15(2–3), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1300/j073v15n02_01 Hasan, M. K., Ismail, A. R., & Islam, M. F. (2017). Tourist risk perceptions and revisit intention: A critical review of literature. Cogent Business & Management, 4(1), Article 1412874. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2017.1412874 Horiachko, K. (2021). Evaluation of touristic risks while visiting Ukraine and the risk perception by travelers. Journal of Environmental Management and Tourism (JEMT), 12(01(49)), 134–145. Hottola, P. (2004). Culture confusion: Intercultural adaptation in tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 31(2), 447–466. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2004.01.003 Imbeah, N., Khademi-Vidra, A., & Bujdoso, Z. (2020). Assessment of tourists’ perceptions on safety at the cape coast tourist destination in Ghana. GeoJournal of Tourism and Geosites, 28(1), 217–231. https://doi.org/10.30892/gtg.28117-464 Jackson, M. (2001). Cultural influences on tourist destination choices of 21 Pacific Rim nations. In Proceedings of the 11th Australian Tourism and Hospitality Research Conference, CAUTHE 2001: Capitalising on Research. University of Canberra Press. Jonas, A., Mansfeld, Y., Paz, S., & Potasman, I. (2011). Determinants of health risk perception among lowrisk-taking tourists traveling to developing countries. Journal of Travel Research, 50(1), 87–99. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287509355323 Kah, J. A., Lee, S.-H., & Kim, J. S. (2022). The effects of travelers’ price sensitivity on information search behaviors. Sustainability, 14(7), Article 3818. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-016-2208-1 Kapuściński, G., & Richards, B. (2016). News framing effects on destination risk perception. Tourism Management, 57, 234–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2016.06.017 Karl, M. (2016). Risk and uncertainty in travel decision-making: Tourist and destination perspective. Journal of Travel Research, 57(1), 129–146. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287516678337 Karl, M., & Schmude, J. (2017). Understanding the role of risk (perception) in destination choice: A literature review and synthesis. Tourism Review, 65(2), 138–155. Keim, C. A., & Somerville, C. (2017). Mistaking Africa: Curiosities and inventions of the American mind. Hachette UK. Khadaroo, J., & Seetanah, B. (2014). Infrastructure, tourism. In J. Jafari, & H. Xiao (Eds.), Encyclopedia of tourism. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-01669-6_447-1 Kiyak, D., & Labanauskaite, D. (2020). Opportunities of the crm concept in creating process of a value-based tourism product. Vadyba / Journal of Management, 36(1), 77–83. https://doi.org/10.38104/vadyba.2020.10 Kozak, M., Crotts, J. C., & Law, R. (2007). The impact of the perception of risk on international travellers. International Journal of Tourism Research, 9(4), 233–242. https://doi.org/10.1002/jtr.607 Lam, L. W. (2012). Impact of competitiveness on salespeople’s commitment and performance. Journal of Business Research, 65(9), 1328–1334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.10.026 Lam, T., & Hsu, C. H. (2006). Predicting behavioral intention of choosing a travel destination. Tourism Management, 27(4), 589–599. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2005.02.003 Lepp, A., & Gibson, H. (2008). Sensation seeking and tourism: Tourist role, perception of risk and destination choice. Tourism Management, 29, 740–750. Lin, P., Jones, E., & Westwood, S. (2009). Perceived risk and risk-relievers in online travel purchase intentions. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 18(8), 782–810. https://doi.org/10.1080/19368620903235803 126 A. H. Solyomfi et al. The assessment of risk tolerance of Hungarian travellers towards abroad trips Liu, H. (2014). Understanding destination choice from a cultural distance perspective [Master’s thesis]. University of South Carolina – Columbia. https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/etd/2668/ Liu, X. S., Shi, Y., Xue, N. I., & Shen, H. (2022). The impact of time pressure on impulsive buying: The moderating role of consumption type. Tourism Management, (91), Article 104505. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2022.104505 Lo, A. S., Cheung, C., & Law, R. (2011). Hong Kong residents’ adoption of risk reduction strategies in leisure travel. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 28(3), 240–260. https://doi.org/10.1080/10548408.2011.562851 Mancini-Cross, C., Backman, K. F., & Baldwin, E. D. (2009). The effect of language barrier on intercultural communications: A case study of educational travel in Italy. Journal of Teaching in Travel & Tourism, (9), 104–123. https://doi.org/10.1080/15313220903042004 Masiero, L., & Nicolau, J. L. (2012). Price sensitivity to tourism activities: Looking for determinant factors. Tourism Economics, 18(4), 675–689. https://doi.org/10.5367/te.2012.0143 Meng, Y., Khan, A., Bibi, S., Wu, H., Lee, Y., & Chen, W. (2021). The effects of COVID-19 risk perception on travel intention: Evidence from Chinese travelers. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, Article 655860. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.655860 Mitchell, V. W., & Vassos, V. (1997). Perceived risk and risk reduction in holiday purchases: A cross-cultural and gender analysis. Journal of Euromarketing, 6(3), 47–79. Neumayer, E. (2004). The impact of political violence on tourism: Dynamic cross–national estimation. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 48(2), 259–281. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002703262358 Novelli, M., Burgess, L. G., Jones, A., & Ritchie, B. W. (2018). ‘No Ebola… still doomed’ – The Ebola-induced tourism crisis. Annals of Tourism Research, 70, 76–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2018.03.006 Pandey, K., & Joshi, S. (2021). Trends in destination choice in tourism research: A 25-year bibliometric review. FIIB Business Review, 10(4), 371–392. https://doi.org/10.1177/23197145211032430 Pizam, A., & Fleischer, A. (2002). Severity versus frequency of acts of terrorism: Which has a larger impact on tourism demand?. Journal of Travel Research, 40(3), 337–339. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287502040003011 Polas, M. R. H., Saha, R. K., & Tabash, M. I. (2022). How does tourist perception lead to tourist hesitation? Empirical evidence from Bangladesh. Environmnet, Development and Sustainability, 24, 3659–3686. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-01581-z Preko, A., & Gyepi-Garbrah, T. F. (2023). Understanding sense of safety and trustworthiness of tourism information among migrant visitors. International Hospitality Review, 37(1), 143–160. https://doi.org/10.1108/IHR-04-2021-0029 Promsivapallop, P., & Kannaovakun, P. (2017). A comparative assessment of destination image, travel risk perceptions and travel intention by young travellers across three ASEAN countries: A study of German students. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 22(6), 634–650. https://doi.org/10.1080/10941665.2017.1308391 Qiao, G., Zhang, J., Pabel, A., & Chen, N. (2021). Understanding the factors influencing the leisure tourism behavior of visually impaired travelers: An empirical study in China. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, Article 684285. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.684285 Rahman, M. K., Gazi, M. A. I., Bhuiyan, M. A., & Rahaman, M. A. (2021). Effect of Covid-19 pandemic on tourist travel risk and management perceptions. PLoS ONE, 16(9), Article e0256486. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256486 Reid, L. J., & Reid, S. D. (1993). Communicating tourism supplier services: Building repeat visitor relationships. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 2(2–3), 3–20. https://doi.org/10.1300/J073v02n02_02 Riefler, P., Diamantopoulos, A., & Siguaw, J. A. (2012). Cosmopolitan consumers as a target group for segmentation. Journal of International Business Studies, 43, 285–305. https://doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2011.51 Journal of Business Economics and Management, 2024, 25(1), 104–128 127 Ruan, W.-Q., Li, Y.-Q., & Liu, C.-H. S. (2017). Measuring tourism risk impacts on destination image. Sustainability, 9, Article 1501. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9091501 Ruiz-Sancho, S., Viñals, M. J., Teruel, L., & Segarra, M. (2021). Security and safety as a key factor for smart tourism destinations: New management challenges in relation to health risks. In V. Katsoni, & C. van Zyl (Eds.), Culture and tourism in a smart, globalized, and sustainable world. Springer proceedings in business and economics (pp. 511–522). Springer. Shadova, Z., Tappaskhanova, E., Abrhám, J., & Zumakulova, Z. (2015). Tourism security and sustainability: A case study of North Caucasus region. Journal of Security and Sustainability Issues, 4(3), 509–519. Som, A. P. M., Aun, O. C., & AlBattat, A. R. (2015). Tourists’ perception of crisis and the impact of instability on destination safety in Sabah, Malaysia. Tourism & Environment, Social and Management Sciences, 5, 96–103. https://doi.org/10.5829/idosi.aejaes.2015.15.s.213 Sönmez, S. F., & Graefe, A. R. (1998). Influence of terrorism risk on foreign tourism decisions. Annals of Tourism Research, 25(1), 112–144. Tarlow, P. (2011). Tourism disaster management in an age of terrorism. International Journal of Tourism Anthropology, 1(3–4), 254–272. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJTA.2011.043709 Tsviliy, S., Gurova, D., & Nykonenko, S. (2021). Organizational and legal aspects of tourist formalities in the context of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the economic security of microenterprises. Scientific Bulletin of the Dnipropetrovsk State Univercity of Internal Affairs: Scientific Journal, (5), 322–329. UN World Tourism Organization. (1997). Tourist safety and security: Practical measures for destinations. Veréb, V., Nobre, H., & Farhangmehr, M. (2020). Cosmopolitan tourists: The resilient segment in the face of terrorism. Tourism Management Perspectives, 33, Article 100620. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2019.100620 Wang, H., & Yan, J. (2022) Effects of social media tourism information quality on destination travel intention: Mediation effect of self-congruity and trust. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, Article 1049149. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1049149 Wang, J., Liu-Lastres, B., Ritchie, B. W., & Pan, D. Z. (2019). Risk reduction and adventure tourism safety: An extension of the risk perception attitude framework (RPAF). Tourism Management, (74), 247–257. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2019.03.012 Weinstein, N. D. (1989). Optimistic biases about personal risks. Science, 246, 1232–1233. Williams, A. M., & Baláž, V. (2013). Tourism, risk tolerance and competences: Travel organization and tourism hazards. Tourism Management, 35, 209–221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2012.07.006 World Economic Forum. (2022). The global risks report (17th ed.). https://www.weforum.org/reports/global-risks-report-2022 World Health Organization. (2017). Global diffusion of eHealth: Making universal health coverage achievable. Report of the third global survey on eHealth. Wut, T. M., Xu, J. B., & Wong, S. M. (2021). Crisis management research (1985–2020) in the hospitality and tourism industry: A review and research agenda. Tourism Management, 85, Article 104307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2021.104307 Xiang, Z., & Gretzel, U. (2010). Role of social media on online travel information search. Tourism Management, 31(2), 179–188. Yang, E. C. L., Khoo-Lattimore, C., & Arcodia, C. (2017). A systematic literature review of risk and gender research in tourism. Tourism Management, 58, 89–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2016.10.011 Yang, E. C. L., & Nair, V. (2014). Tourism at risk: A review of risk and perceived risk in tourism. Asia-Pacific Journal of Innovation in Hospitality and Tourism (APJIHT), 3(2), 239–259. https://doi.org/10.7603/s40930-014-0013-z Yang, E. C. L., Sharif, S. P., & Khoo-Lattimore, C. (2015). Tourists’ risk perception of risky destinations: The case of Sabah’s Eastern coast. Tourism and Hospitality Research, 15(3), 206–221. https://doi.org/10.1177/1467358415576085