How does tourist perception lead to tourist hesitation? Empirical evidence from Bangladesh.

The paper aims to identify the factors that cause prospective tourists' hesitation to travel. The study also examines whether this relationship is mediated by the tourist perception in Bangladesh. The study is of quantitative design, and the relationships between tourist knowledge, tourist health risk, and destination personality with tourist hesitation were explored using a sample of 322 Bangladeshi prospective tourists. The three relationships were also examined through tourist perception. By using cross-sectional data, the researchers hypothesized that tourist knowledge, tourist health risk, and destination personality have a positive and significant effect on tourist hesitation. Besides, the researchers also hypothesized that tourist perception mediates the relationships between tourist knowledge, tourist health risk, and destination personality with tourist hesitation. In this respect, the Smart PLS 3.0 was employed to analyze the data. The results of the study confirm findings of previous related studies by not only highlighting the importance of tourist perception in shaping tourist hesitation but also indicating the way each dimension of tourism either enhances or inhibits the tourist hesitation. The results of the study also reveal a positive and significant relationship between tourist knowledge and tourist health risk with tourist hesitation. The analysis of data showed no conventional relationship between destination personality and tourist hesitation. Accordingly, this study identified the extent to which tourist perception mediates the relationship between tourist knowledge and destination personality with tourist hesitation. Meanwhile, the results of the study indicate the absence of any mediation role of tourist perception between tourist health risk and tourist hesitation. The study outcomes would encourage the government, policymakers, and tourism managements in creating a tailor-made responsiveness program by building a scenario that could offer more prominent sustainable tourism establishments. Besides, the results may assist stakeholders of tourist destinations in understanding tourist perception and the causes of tourist's hesitation.

Introduction

Tourism industry has witnessed noticeable growth worldwide due to the economic growth and subsequent improvement of the quality of people's life (Cui et al., 2016; Dwyer et al., 2020). Several studies have identified tourism as a driver of the economic growth of any country (Badulescu et al., 2020; Mishra et al., 2011; Swangjang & Kornpiphat, 2021; Tang & Tan, 2015). Innumerable travelers visit different parts of the world to enjoy their leisure time or conduct business activities (Barbhuiya & Chatterjee, 2020; Bonham et al., 2006; Korstanje, 2011; Lepp & Gibson, 2003; Pforr, 2009). Despite the growth of the tourism industry worldwide, destination managers are increasingly getting concerned about the factors that create tourist hesitation toward traveling (Drimili et al., 2020; Pal et al., 2021; Pulido-Fernández et al., 2019; Wong & Yeh, 2009).

In South Asia, for instance, Bangladesh is one of the few countries that is not considered as a favorable destination, despite possessing natural landscapes and friendly people. Bangladesh has its beauty which is peculiar and delicate (Amin, 2017). It has many popular tourist attractions including ancient mosques, sites and temples, archeological sites, the longest sea beach in the world, the hills and woods of Sunderban and the wilderness of Chittagong hills, clans, thousands of rolling tea gardens of globally renowned brands, and islands. It offers a lot of tourist attractions and motivations to convince travelers to pay frequent visits to it. In the Chittagong Division of Bangladesh, Asia, the town of Cox's Bazar in Cox's Bazar is home to the largest unbroken, natural sandy beach in the world, including dumb homes; it is 150 km long (Majumder & Iqbal, 2018). Cox's Bazar is probably the leading and most visited tourist destination (Amin, 2017), and it is labeled as the tourist city of choice in Bangladesh. Tourism is the primary source of the economy of Cox's Bazar contributing greatly to the national GDP (Hossain, 2020; Sadar & Rekha, 2016).

As far as the importance of the travel and tourism industry in the global economy is concerned, the COVID-19 pandemic has done much damage to the vitality of this sector. While COVID-19 is a major contributor to the decline of international tourism sector, few research studies were conducted on the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on tourism and travel industry in Bangladesh (Hafsa, 2020; Hossain, 2020). With alarming COVID-19 related health risks, countries all over the world imposed lockdowns, restrictions on domestic and international flights to prevent the spread of this pandemic. Given such unprecedented circumstances, tourism is badly affected by the restrictions on movement of people and the ban on travel (Deb & Nafi, 2020). In the past few years, Bangladesh's tourism sector has gradually expanded with a strong domestic travel sector. Nonetheless, tourism and transport activities have remained closed since mid-March 2020 due to travel restrictions. COVID-19 has contributed to dramatic shifts in Bangladesh's lifestyle and economy (Begum et al., 2020) with all forms of economic enterprise being halted by the Government of Bangladesh.

Amid the pandemic, the Asian travel industry sector has been seriously discouraged. The well-performing traveler destinations in Asia including China, Thailand, Singapore, South Korea, Japan, Malaysia, and Indonesia have witnessed a considerable reduction in their tourist arrivals (Berglund et al., 2019; Nhamo et al., 2020) (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1

Decrease in tourist arrivals in Asia-Pacific countries/Source: LightCastle Analytics Wing (2020)

With restricted travel and cancellation of business flights, the lavish hotel industry has likewise been confronting the domino impact of economic fallout. The occupancy rates of luxury hotels declined substantially. While hotels would have witnessed occupancy rates of 80% in regular times, the current rates have plunged to 30% (Deb & Nafi, 2020; Hafsa, 2020; Jabbari et al., 2019).

In Cox's Bazar, the main study location, there had been a steady decline in both domestic and foreign tourist visits since it was listed as a red zone by the Government. A striking economic effect of COVID-19 (The Daily Star, 2020), the economy is being weighed. PATA Bangladesh has predicted that by June 2020 the tourism sector in Bangladesh will lose some Tk 9.705 core as a result of the pandemic. Other main tourism centers in the country, like Khulna, Chittagong, Cox Bazar, Rajshahi and others are facing the same scenario due to the COVID-19 pandemic; especially budget hotels. Motels and households which are the ultimate target for low-income people are facing a crisis. Overall, the COVID-19 pandemic affects all tourism sectors in Bangladesh (The Daily Star, 2020) (Fig. 2, Table 1).

Fig. 2

Change in occupancy rates of luxury hotels in Bangladesh/Source: LightCastle Analytics Wing (2020)

Table 1

Forecasted effect of COVID-19 on the tourism industry

No.	Sectors	Total Taka in crores (till June 2020)	Total Jobless (till June 2020)
1	Aviation: Private airlines	600	2,000
2	Hotels/Resorts/Inns (2*–5*)	1500	1,00,000
3	Travel A	3000	15,000
4	Tour Operators:
	Inbound:	100	1,000
	Outbound: ( Land packages only)	2500	15,000
	Domestic:	1000	20,000
	UMRAH (Land packages only)	450	5,000
5	Restaurants, coffee shop, first food, BAR and others	500	1,50,000
6	Transportations directly involve in Tourism:
	Vehicles using for tourism (Car/Micro/Mini coach)	40	1,000
	Tourist Vessels:	15	500
7	Total turnover in word Tk. Nine Hundred Seventy One point Five billion	Tk. 9,705 crores	3,09,500

Source PATA Bangladesh Chapter (2020)

WTO has updated 2020 forecasts for worldwide tourist arrival to a negative growth of 1 percent to 3 percent and US $ 30 to US $ 50 billion loss in global tourist receipts. The worldwide closure has stopped up the international tourism activities. Hundreds of travel and Tour Companies went bankrupt, and a significant number of small hotels, motels, resorts, restaurants were forced to close down. A huge number of individuals went jobless soon after COVID-19 pandemic. Table 1 shows the determined information of the initial half-year of the tourism industry (Ahmed et al., 2020; Anable & Gatersleben, 2005; Banik et al., 2020; Hossain et al. 2020).

With the decline of COVID-19 cases in the first wave, tourists started to travel to the tourist places especially to the Cox’s Bazar Sea beach in Bangladesh. Around one million tourists rushed to the Cox’s Bazar (Tribune, 2021a). All airline and bus tickets were sold out, and around 400 hotels and resorts were scrambling to locate spare rooms for travelers (Tribune, 2021a). Hotel costs have risen dramatically, with the minimum fee for a one-night stay currently ranging from $35 to $85. This increase in tourist activity came after the decrease in the number of daily Covid-19 cases and fatalities in the country, causing people to be less concerned about the epidemic. After that, all the tourist sites throughout the country along with Cox's Bazar were instructed by the local district government to be prepared for a new (second) wave of Covid-19 (Tribune, 2021b). This caused a disruption to the tourism sector and forced tourist-related activities to halt.

Results of previous studies have identified certain factors that have considerable impact on tourists’ hesitation toward the decision of destination choices (Kogo et al., 2020; Nadeau et al., 2008; Polas et al., 2018; Um & Crompton, 1990; Uslu & Akay, 2019). Health, travel expenses, a distance of the destination, and time constraint significantly contributed to the tourists’ hesitation toward destination choice (Carvache-Franco et al., 2019; Shaktawat & Vadhera, 2020; Tepavčević et al., 2019). Fischer et al. (1991) defined travel risk as the probability of a negative outcome from tourists’ behaviors during traveling. Boshoff (2002) showed evidence of the influence of travel risk associated with inadequate information available and can on the last moment change tourists’ decision (Monsarrat et al., 2019). Liu (2009) observed an increasing trend in which tourists get more aware of risk factors relevant to traveling (Liu et al., 2019; Rezaei & Maihami, 2019; Zhu et al., 2021).

Empirical research concerning the influence of tourist perceptions on tourist hesitation in the decision-making process is sparse, leaving some crucial questions unanswered in this vital area of study. In the theory of decision-making, it is a style of decision-making that is a more stable feature of the decision-maker, in addition to the usual course (Chen & Chen, 2019; Lu et al., 2016; Thunholm, 2004). Tourist personality, therefore, tested by model homogeneous behaviors, is not adequate to explain tourist hesitation. In addition, additional concepts, such as tourist motivation and the advantages demanded by models of destination behavior, are not adequate either to explain tourist hesitations, because they cause tourists to visit a destination. Rather, the use of tourists knowledge, health risks and destination personality are fundamental to the proactive hesitation of tourists regarding decisions and policy-making (Xiao & Smith, 2007), and it is important, to make a marketing decision, to establish efficient contact, campaigns and service delivery, to consider the knowledge of tourists, health risks and the personality of the destination (Gursoy & McCleary, 2004; Yasin et al., 2017).

Researchers note that the perceptions of risk, while common from consumption experiences are still under investigation. However, the direct influence of tourist perception, the risks to tourist health, and the destination personality are precedents of unwilling tourism (Fermani et al., 2020; Hanefeld et al., 2015; Spector, 2020). Several research studies have explored the relationship between risk perception and hesitation. Some suggest that a high perceived risk increases the hustle and bustle of visitors and impacts hesitation toward tourism decision-making (Beneke et al., 2013; Mason et al., 2016; Russell-Bennett et al., 2005). Furthermore, the fundamentals of tourist decision-making and travel behavior are thoroughly studied, but there has been a lack of studies incorporating the issue of tourist hesitation due to tourist insufficient perception and knowledge (Jonas & Mansfeld, 2017; Lalicic & Önder, 2018; Peng & Chen, 2019; Polas et al., 2019). Wong and Yeh (2009) investigated the relationship of tourist hesitation with destination decision-making and found evidence of tourists’ perceived risk positively influencing the tourist hesitation. There is still great scope for investigating the dynamics of tourist hesitation from different perspectives (Afshar Jahanshahi et al., 2020a, 2020b; Hasan et al., 2017; Islam et al., 2020; Khan et al., 2017a, 2017b; Park et al., 2019). Therefore, it is crucial to find the behavioral issues that demotivate or drive people to hesitate to travel because if tourist hesitation is not properly addressed, it will lead to a lower number of travelers. In this study, we attempted to identify whether health risk perception, tourist knowledge, and destination personality can influence tourists’ hesitation to travel to any travel destination. We used tourist perception as a mediating variable for examining these relationships.

The positivist approach, as implemented here, enabled the researchers to seek empirical evidence using the method of hypothetic deductive observation (Polas & Raju, 2021). In addition, the descriptive research method was introduced as the study contained clear problem statements, specific assumptions and a comprehensive body of information (Malhotra, 2004).

Literature review

Hesitation

The definition of ‘Hesitation’ has not been explicitly developed in the previous studies, except for the review of Cho et al. (2006), which described it as postponing or postponing sales of products with an additional processing time before the final purchasing of the commodity. It may be invoked both to postpone action and to discourage actions to explain the reasons consumers do not consume it (Ahmed et al., 2020; Badulescu et al., 2020; Dwyer et al., 2020). Although all meanings have to do with reluctance, hesitation cannot be completely explained by the principle of resisting or postponing behavior. Hesitation is a form of choice that relies on different expectations than those defined in early decision-making studies (Beneke et al., 2013; Cahyanto et al., 2016; Fermani et al., 2020). Moreover, the degree of hesitation includes difficulty in executing the planned intervention, and the idea is that people are less likely to establish clear, divisive views of controversial issues, show more ambivalence, and thus are less likely than others to partake in decision-making related behavior (Chen et al., 2019; Cherkani & Brito, 2018). Thompson and Zanna (1995) prove that the personal anxiety of invalidity is conceptually related to hesitation as it involves the errors and adverse consequences of a judgment embodied in a timid decision (Hafsa, 2020; Wong & Yeh, 2009). This also suggests that personal fear of invalidity (i.e. risk perception) can be perceived in advance of other factors as a significant personal indicator of hesitation (Cho et al., 2006; Chien et al., 2017; Deb et al., 2020; Gharleghi & Jahanshahi, 2020).

Tourist knowledge

Tourist knowledge is borrowed from consumer's product knowledge and is a central building block in understanding consumer habits such as information quest (Wijesinghe et al., 2019) and information processing (Kärle et al., 2018; Khan et al., 2017a, 2017b; Kogo et al., 2020; Rezaei & Maihami, 2019). Delbridge and Bernard, (1998) defined Knowledge as the whole of facts and values gathered by mankind about a specific area. In cognitive psychology, knowledge has been divided into declarative knowledge and procedural knowledge. Declarative knowledge includes accumulated knowledge about facts, theories, and interrelations; those are possible to communicate verbally (Artuğer, 2015; Peng & Chen, 2019; Zou & Meng, 2020). On the other hand, procedural knowledge is related to the skills required in the performance of any task (Cohen & Squire, 1980; Gabrieli, 1998; Lee et al., 2011; Polas et al., 2020). In an attempt to define tourist knowledge, Tsaur et al. (2010) showed that travel-related information and skills represent tourists’ perception of associated knowledge about any travel. In this case, declarative knowledge refers to tourist’s perception of the specific travel destination and procedural knowledge denotes the practical use the knowledge by tourists in the traveling period starting from planning to the end of the trip (Banik et al., 2020; Begum et al., 2020; Hanefeld et al., 2015; Hasan et al., 2017).

Tourist health risk

Peattie et al. (2005), defined tourist health risk as the probability of suffering from diseases or other health complexities due to the exposure to any traveling experiences. The existing literature on tourism posited travel as a complex process innately containing a significant level of uncertainties and risks that make the tourism sector highly vulnerable (Bhattacharjee et al., 2018; Fuchs et al., 2013; Polas et al., 2019; Williams & Baláž, 2015). Jonas et al. (2011) identified tourist health risk as an inseparable part of traveling which has endangering impact on the safety and security of the tourists that enhances their hesitation to travel. On the top, risk perception regarding health has become an important consideration for tourists due to the growing trend of developing a sense of safety among tourists facilitated by the increased availability of information, and these risk perceptions would have an impact on travel hesitation toward decisions of tourists (Cahyanto et al., 2016; Jonas et al., 2011; Khan et al., 2017a, 2017b; Page, 2009).

Destination personality

The concept of destination personality is quite contemporary in the existing literature on tourism (Hosany et al., 2006; Polas et al., 2017; Majumder et al., 2018; Lin et al., 2019; Li et al., 2020). Positioning travel destinations based on their basic characteristics are prone to the risk of being less unique and easily replicable. To create a unique position of travel destination and attract more tourists, additional attributes like destination personality may be proven fruitful (Baloglu et al., 2014; Ekinci & Hosany, 2006; Tjiptono & Yang, 2018; Usakli & Baloglu, 2011). Chen and Phou (2013) showed that the idea of destination personality is applied by destination marketers to brand their places in modern-day severely competitive tourism industry. Additionally, they suggested destination personality as an important metaphor for travel destination branding. The idea of destination personality comes from Aaker’s brand personality model. According to Aaker (1997), the brand personality is defined as “the set of human characteristics associated with a brand”. “A well-established brand personality aids in the development of favorable brand evaluations, which leads to brand preference and loyalty” (Bhattacharjee et al., 2018; Biel, 1993; Sung & Kim, 2010). Based on Aaker’s framework, Ekinci and Hosany (2006) described destination personality as “the set of human characteristics associated with a destination as perceived from a tourist viewpoint.”

Tourist risk perception

The perception of tourists as an option of travel is important for the destination. In the past, scholars have defined perception as a “subjective sense of certainty of the person that the consequences will be unfavorable” and “the amount lost if the effects of an act were not beneficial” (Carballo et al., 2017; Cui et al., 2016; Mishra et al., 2011; Mohamad et al., 2012). It is not possible for prospective travelers to criticize tourist attractions that do not meet travellers’ expectations and the desired goals. It is wise to be mindful that the risk of terrorism is seen as expensive rather than secure at a given destination (Carballo et al., 2017; Monsarrat et al., 2019; Ngo et al., 2019). Tourism is often perceived to be a consumer practice (Pan & Ryan, 2007; Yang et al., 2015). There is also a possibility that the goods or facilities will not meet the expectations of tourists or that they will accumulate variables beyond the scope of tourist use (Yang et al., 2015). The evolution of the ‘risk’ concept (Cui et al., 2016; Peng & Chen, 2019) in tourism as a two-dimensional synthesis means that there is a possibility for tourists on a trip or a tourist destination to be variously unfortunate (Garg, 2015) and the implications and detrimental consequences for tourists after making travel decisions (Carballo et al., 2017; Cui et al., 2016; Pulido-Fernández et al., 2019).

According to Dhebar (1996), any consumer’s perception of risk may make him/her regret an earlier purchase or hesitate to buy a new product (He et al., 2018; Suhartanto et al., 2020). Cho et al. (2006) argued that customer hesitation can be viewed as a tendency to delay or quit the purchase, and consumer perception influences this hesitation. Two theories support the role of tourist risk perception toward tourist hesitation in this study which are Anderson’s (1981) information integration theory (IIT) and Roger’s (1975) protection motivation theory (PMT) (Sönmez & Graefe, 1998; Pulido-Fernández et al., 2019). Together, IIT and PMT suggest that future travel behavior would be influenced by images of security and risk that individuals have of regions (Hew et al., 2018; Sönmez & Graefe, 1998; Su & Swanson, 2019).

Hypotheses development

Tourist knowledge and tourist hesitation

In our first hypothesis, we assumed that the level of individual tourist’s knowledge will have a positive impact on hesitation toward the traveling decision. While deciding on a travel destination, tourist gathers all the relevant information including risk factors about visiting the place (Hasan et al., 2017; Li et al., 2020; Peng & Chen, 2019; Tang & Tan, 2015; Zou & Meng, 2020). According to Dolnicar (2007), the tourist’s knowledge of the risks and precise perceptions regarding safety has a strong impact on travel decisions. If alternatives available involve risk, the decision-makers tend to delay or quit taking decisions concerned (Dhar, 1997; Tjiptono & Yang, 2018; Uslu & Akay, 2019). In a research paper conducted on online consumer behavior, Cho et al. (2006) defined such a behavior involving delay in decision-making as hesitation by itself. Tourists have started to perceive traveling worldwide as unsafe due to the recent emergence of deadly contagious viruses like COVID-19 (Zhu et al., 2021; Zou & Meng, 2020). We have assumed that this perception will be likely to last even the pandemic is over. Additionally, Glaesser (2003) showed that perceived risk has more influence than actual risk that enhances hesitations and tourists make their travel decisions (Jiang & Ritchie, 2017; Ngo et al., 2019; Sadar et al., 2016; Shaktawat & Vadhera, 2020; Spector, 2020). Thus, we hypothesize the following,

H1

There is a positive and significant relationship between tourist knowledge regarding different risks and tourist hesitation.

Tourist Health Risk and Tourist Hesitation

In our second hypothesis, we predicted that a positive and significant relationship exists between tourist health risk and tourist hesitation in this new pandemic situation. Fuchs and Reichel (2006) showed travel destination-specific attributes, such as rough weather, natural calamities, and diseases, make a contribution to the tourists’ risk perception (Garg, 2015; Hew et al., 2018; Zou & Meng, 2020). According to Page (2009), health risks, generally exposed by tourists, are not life-threatening. Health risk perception toward any travel destination is associated with individual health and safety (Hossain, 2020; Jonas et al., 2011; Li et al., 2020; Peng & Chen, 2019). Chien et al. (2017) posited that the way tourists perceive health risk, involving any travel destination, has a significant impact on their decisions to go there and the level of preventive measures they take before traveling. They also recognized the growing importance of studies on health risks associated with tourism. The highly transmittable and life-threatening nature of different diseases has exposed tourists to unprecedented health risk which is likely to have a positive impact on the tourist hesitation regarding travel decision (Hasan et al., 2017; Islam et al., 2020; Kogo et al., 2020; Li et al., 2020; Ngo et al., 2019). Thus, we hypothesize the following,

H2

There is a positive and significant relationship between tourist health risk and tourist hesitation.

Destination Personality and Tourist Hesitation

In our third hypothesis, we hypothesized that there is a negative and significant relationship between destination personality and tourist hesitation due to the COVID-19 situation. There is some evidence of successful development of destination personality. For example, London is recognized as liberal, unorthodox, and creative, Spain as welcoming and family-oriented, and Paris as a heaven of lovers (Morgan & Pritchard, 2002; Majumder et al., 2018; Lin et al., 2019; Mohebali et al., 2019; Li et al., 2020; Nhamo et al., 2020). Ekinci and Hosany (2006) confirmed this perspective by showing that popular tourist attractions are affluent in terms of symbolic values associated with histories, legends, emotions, and events. Several studies investigated the relationship between destination personality and tourists' behavioral intentions (Hosany et al., 2006; Hultman et al., 2015; Park et al., 2019; Peng & Chen, 2019; Usakli & Baloglu, 2011; Zeugner-Roth & Zabkar, 2015). These studies showed that positive destination personality increases the visit intentions of tourists, and poor destination personality demotivates travelers. The occurrence of pandemics, such as Covid-19, has brought remarkable change in today’s world. The personality of the travel destination would get new dimensions taking health issues into travelers' account. Poor disease control could make any travel destination personality undesirable (Badulescu et al., 2020; Begum et al., 2020; Cherkani & Brito, 2018; Thai & Yuksel, 2017). Thus, we hypothesize the following,

H3

There is a positive and significant relationship between undesirable destination personality and tourist hesitation.

The mediation role of tourist perception

In our last three hypotheses, we assumed that tourist perception plays a mediation role in the association between tourist knowledge, tourist health risk, and destination personality with tourist hesitation. While assessing the consumer knowledge, Park et al. (1994) showed that subjective form of knowledge is consumers’ perception of their understanding of a product category which helps them to make any purchase decision (He et al., 2018; Huat et al., 2019; Suhartanto et al., 2020). Furthermore, Berger et al. (1994) confirmed that subjective product knowledge has an impact on future purchase behavior. Sonmez & Graefe (1998) showed that the perception of safety and risk that tourists have about any travel destination influences a tourist’s future travel intention. Therefore, Floyd and Pennington-Gray (2004) also emphasize the importance of the study of the tourist risk perception as there is evidence of association of higher risk with decreased visitation (Deb et al., 2020; Drimili et al., 2020). In the context of the tourism industry, a more comprehensive perspective of understanding tourist perception of risk includes evaluating tourists’ health concern both in terms of perception of susceptibility and severity (Banik et al., 2020; Cahyanto et al., 2016). Additionally, Chien et al. (2017) expressed that perception of tourists of health risk is one of the critical inputs in tourist’s decision-making method (Chen et al., 2019; Suhartanto et al., 2020).

According to Gartner (1986), the total image of any travel destination is formed from the interaction of tourist perceptions of attributes of the destination including all the attractions and happenings within the area. Murphy et al. (2000) claimed that a positive relationship exists between the tourists’ understanding of the atmosphere, infrastructure, value, and willingness to revisit their perceptions and experiences. Gill and Ibrahim (2005) also confirmed the impact of the image of any destination on the tourist perception in terms of environment, safety, and comfort (Islam et al., 2020; Lin et al., 2019; Mohebali et al., 2019). On the top, Mohamad et al. (2012) posited that tourist perception has an influence on tourists’ forthcoming behavioral intents based on the study conducted on overseas tourists in Malaysia. According to Walker and Page (2003), tourist’s perception of risk varies based on the level of intensity and severity. For instance, risks like the probability of terrorist attack are infrequent, but the magnitudes of such events are high, while travel health hazards normally have high frequency with minor severity. This argument is not that strong in the present scenario since diseases such as COVID-19 expose travelers to life-threatening risks. Therefore, we assumed that tourist knowledge, tourist health risk and destination personality influence tourist hesitation to travel with mediation effect of tourist perception (Chen & Chou, 2019; Hossain, 2020; Suhartanto et al., 2020) (Fig. 3). We hypothesize the following.

Fig. 3

The framework of the study

H4

Tourist Perception mediates the relationship between tourist knowledge and tourist hesitation.

H5

Tourist Perception mediates the relationship between tourist health risk and tourist hesitation.

H6

Tourist Perception mediates the relationship between destination personality and tourist hesitation.

Research methodology

Research design

In this study, positivism as an approach is employed. This approach allows researchers to discover empirical information using a hypothetical deductive observation process (Polas & Raju, 2021). The descriptive method of research was also used as the study involved particular problems, specific assumptions and a comprehensive set of knowledge (Malhotra, 2004).

Measurement development

In order to compare the various layouts, validated items have been added and revalidated for the current study. Both focus constructs for this model have been measured by literature-based reflective constructs and are structured to simplify measures using the Likert five-point scale, ranging from (1) 'strongly disagree' to (5) 'strongly agree.' Our 25-item questionnaire satisfies the minimum criteria for a rigorous instrument for Hair et al. (2014). The five variables of the model are as follows: tourist knowledge from Wong & Yeh (2009); tourist health risk from Wong & Yeh (2009); destination personality from Lee & Xie (2011); tourist perception from Lee & Xie (2011); and tourist hesitation from Lee & Xie (2011). Each of these variables is composed of four items from the stated sources. Later, a small survey was conducted through online forms to measure intention to revisit destination with reference to the COVID-19 pandemic. It consisted of three items adapted from Artuğer (2015).

Sampling and data collection

To test our hypotheses, a sample of 451 tourists was randomly selected to conduct the survey; all visited the city of Cox’s Bazar between December 2019 and January 2020. Following the quantitative analysis, data were collected through a survey method following the cross-sectional design. In addition, our sample data were obtained by non-probability (convenience) sampling, while a team of trained research assistants contributed to the processing of sample data. Moreover, convenience sampling has led to the management of our limited resources. We excluded 129 questionnaires as it was incompletely provided by the tourists. A lack of faith in the survey may be the likely cause. We have also ensured that tourists can take part in face-to-face visits only after visiting the areas as tourists. In general, our results meet the criteria of Comrey and Lee (1992) for a good sample size. The final complete 322 samples were used to get the study outcomes. The response rate was 71.40 percent.

Cox’s Bazar (World Longest Sea Beach) is one of the main cities receiving tourists (both national and international) in Bangladesh. Among 322 samples, 29 samples (9%) were foreign tourists (USA, Canada, Sweden, Japan, China and India) and 293 samples (91%) were local tourists. Due to first identification of COVID-19 on December 2019 in Wuhan, China, the situation was affected by the cancelation of domestic and international flights. Visas are consequently still being denied to tourists from all countries. Normality tests were conducted using Kolmogorov–Smirnov and Shapiro–Wilk tests (SPSS V.25 analysis), both revealed that the appropriate value (p value) is greater than 0.05. It can be concluded that the data seem to be normally distributed. In addition, we assume that our findings are roughly marginally skewed in terms of skewness (0.74) and curtosis (1.02), with all z values below ± 1.96 (SPSS V.25 analysis) but without any concern. Later, a small survey was conducted to measure the intention to revisit destinations in light of the COVID-19 pandemic through online forms and various traveling groups on social media which consists of three items (see Appendix). We received 90 complete and usable responses in this regard.

In order to extend the potential for further credible responses, we have made our survey brief and conceivable. Operating brief surveys broaden our potential for more legitimate responses. Each survey was still close to five minutes away. To boost accuracy, the initial survey was translated into a local language (Bengali) using the dual-back-translation process. To consider the respondents' interpretation of the survey items and to enhance the reliability of the questionnaire, the survey was pre-tested on 28 respondents. These respondents were excluded from the final samples. To lessen social desirability bias, we guaranteed all respondents anonymity and confidentiality in the introductory letter of the study. We used a time-trend extrapolation test to identify the non-response bias suggested by Armstrong and Overton (1977) and commonly used Business, psychology, and business academics. A comparison between the two early respondents (first 25%) with late respondents (late 25%) proved that our results are susceptible to non-response bias.

Data analysis

Structural equation modeling (SEM) is widely used to facilitate mediation and measurement of dynamic relationships (Hair et al., 2014; Zheng & Lu, 2011). Hypotheses were tested with Smart PLS 3.0 instruments in this study. The sample size is the main determinant for SEM and the minimum sample size proposed by Hair et al. (2014) using the minimum R-square method has been surpassed in our case. Smart PLS 3.0 was used to validate the data interpretation and to test the validity and reliability of the research model.

Results from analysis

For the evaluation of the study model and outcomes, Smart PLS 3.0 (SEM-Structural Equation Modeling) was applied in this study. A sample of 322 Bangladeshi respondents participated in the study (Table 2).

Table 2

Respondent's demographic profile

Characteristics	Frequency	Percentage
Gender
Male	192	59.63
Female	130	40.37
Age
18–22 Years	45	13.98
23–27 Years	81	25.16
28-32Years	78	24.22
33–37 Years	67	20.81
38 Years or above	51	15.84
Marital status
Single	201	62.42
Married	114	35.4
Divorced	7	2.17
Separated
Window
Education level
SSC	17	5.27
HSC	29	9
Under Graduate	179	55.59
Post Graduate	97	30.12
Monthly Income (US Dollar)
250–500	83	25.78
501–750	67	20.81
751–1000	78	24.22
1001–1250	66	20.5
1251–1500	28	8.7
Total	322

The demographic profile of the respondents is seen in Table 1. As seen in Table 1, 59.63% of respondents were male, 13.98% were 18–22 years of age, 62.42% were single, 55.59% of the respondents were undergraduate and 25.78% of the respondent's monthly income was between USD 250–500.

Measurement of model assessment

Model assessment is an integral part of any research based on some measurements or assumptions. Here, Table 3 below shows the factors loadings of items, AVE values, Composite Reliability (CR), Cronbach's alpha values, R square values and NFI value which claim the recommended values.

Table 3

Measurement of model assessment

Constructs	Items	Loading	AVE	CR	Alpha	R-Square	NFI
	TK1	0.776
Tourist knowledge (TK)	TK2	0.905	0.704	0.858	0.904
	TK3	0.810
	TK4	0.859
	THR5	0.844
Tourist Health Risk (THR)	THR6	0.847	0.720	0.870	0.911
	THR7	0.859
	THR8	0.843
	DP9	0.885
Destination Personality (DP)	DP10	0.846	0.744	0.885	0.921		0.899
	DP11	0.886
	DP12	0.833
	TP13	0.909
Tourist Perception (TP)	TP14	0.785	0.760	0.893	0.926	0.904
	TP15	0.875
	TP16	0.912
	TH17	0.894
Tourist Hesitation (TH)	TH18	0.950	0.760	0.893	0.926	0.914
	TH19	0.781
	TH20	0.852

Table 3 shows that the AVE value of every variable is above 0.50 and the value of CR and Cronbach’s Alpha is above 0.70 and the value of factor loadings is above 0.60 which are the suggested or accepted range. The NFI value is 0.899 which is close to the accepted range. Therefore, the conceptual model is best fit with the study objectives and hypotheses (Hair et al., 2014). From Table 3 above, it is visible that R2 indicates the values of the variances of the endogenous variable(s). Usually, by three different effects, the value of R2 is denoted which is small (R2 = 2%), median (R2 = 13%) and large effect (R2 = 26%) (Polas & Raju, 2021). Here, tourist hesitation is demonstrated by a large effect (0.914 or 91.40%) with exogenous variables. Then, tourist perception is also stated by (0.904 or 90.40%) large effect with exogenous variables.

Discriminant validity: Fornell–Larcker criterion

To evaluate the discriminate validity for assessing the model, the Fornell-Larcker criterion (1981) was applied. Table 4 shows the values of correlations between the LV (Latent Variables) and square roots of the AVE values in the main diagonal in the SEM. Moreover, the square root of the AVE (in bold) of all variables describes the highest within a range of 0.839–0.872. Thus, it is well comprehensible that discriminant validity is sustained between variables and accredited for this estimated model of the study.

Table 4

Values of correlations between the LV and square roots of the AVE values in the main diagonal in the SEM

		1	2	3	4	5
1	Destination Personality	0.863
2	Tourist Health Risk	0.766	0.848
3	Tourist Hesitation	0.781	0.815	0.872
4	Tourist Knowledge	0.675	0.744	0.676	0.839
5	Tourist Perception	0.684	0.759	0.743	0.777	0.872

The diagonal is the square root of the AVE (in bold) of the latent variables and indicates the highest in any column or raw

Structural model assessment

Structural model assessment is another crucial part of figuring out its validity. Figure 4 shows the structural model assessment. Using the bootstrapping process with a resample 500 was also implemented to figure out the t values and R square.

Fig. 4

Standardized results of SEM calculations

Hypotheses Testing

Table 5 shows the results of direct and indirect effect hypotheses by running SEM where the hypothesis was tested. In the first hypothesis, we presumed that a higher level of tourist knowledge influences tourist hesitation. In Table 5, a positive and significant relationship is found between tourist knowledge and tourist hesitation (β = 0.237, t = 3.034, p < 0.05). Hence, hypothesis 1 is sustained. In the second hypothesis, we assumed that tourist health risk has a positive effect on tourist hesitation. In Table 5, a positive and significant relationship is found between tourist health risk and their tourist hesitation (β = 0.261, t = 3.936, p < 0.05). Thus, hypothesis 2 is supported. In the third hypothesis, we predicted that destination personality has a positive effect on tourist hesitation. In Table 5, a positive but insignificant relationship is found between destination personality and tourist hesitation (β = 0.095, t = 1.051, p > 0.05). Thus, hypothesis 3 is not supported.

Table 5

Result of direct and indirect effect hypotheses

Hypothesis	Relationship	Std Beta	Std Error	t value	p value	Decision
H1	Tourist Knowledge → Tourist Hesitation	0.237	0.079	3.034	0.003	Supported
H2	Tourist Health Risk → Tourist Hesitation	0.261	0.067	3.936	0.000	Supported
H3	Destination Personality → Tourist Hesitation	0.095	0.088	1.051	0.294	Rejected
H4	Tourist Knowledge → Tourist Perception → Tourist Hesitation	0.088	0.034	2.647	0.008	Supported
H5	Tourist Health Risk → Tourist Perception → Tourist Hesitation	0.079	0.053	1.441	0.150	Rejected
H6	Destination Personality → Tourist Perception → Tourist Hesitation	0.221	0.061	3.610	0.000	Supported

Furthermore, in the fourth hypothesis, we expected that tourist perception mediates the relationship between tourist knowledge and tourist hesitation. Table 5 shows that tourist perception mediates the connection between tourist knowledge and tourist hesitation perfectly (β = 0.088, t = 2.647, p < 0.05). Thus, hypothesis 4 is supported. In the fifth hypothesis, we assumed that tourist perception mediates the relationship between tourist health risk and tourist hesitation. Table 5 shows that tourist perception does not mediate the connection between tourist health risk and tourist hesitation perfectly (β = 0.079, t = 1.441, p > 0.05). Thus, hypothesis 5 is rejected. In the sixth hypothesis, we expected that tourist perception mediates the relationship between destination personality and tourist hesitation. In Table 5, we found that tourist perception mediates the connection between destination personality and tourist hesitation perfectly (β = 0.221, t = 3.610, p < 0.05). Thus, hypothesis 6 is proved right.

Table 6 shows the tourist’s intention to revisit the destination in light of COVID-19. In Table 6, when tourists were asked “If I come to travel again, my first choice will be Cox’s Bazar?, 37.8% of tourists strongly agreed to revisit this tourist destination in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. Further, they were asked the question “I plan to come to Cox’s Bazar again in the future,” 34.4% of tourists agreed to revisit the tourist destination. Finally, when tourists were asked the question “The probability that I come to Cox’s Bazar again for holidays is high,” 38.9% of tourists agreed to revisit the destination. Overall, it is assumed that tourists have an intention to revisit destinations in light of COVID-19 as they are bored and exhausted due to movement restrictions. In this regard, they are seeking refreshment to boost their mental health.

Table 6

Intention to Revisit Tourist Destination (COVID-19 Perspective)

Items	Mean	Std. Dev	Likert Scale	Frequency	Percent
			Strongly Disagree	3	3.3
Item 1	3.75	1.202	Disagree	13	14.4
			Not Sure	21	23.3
			Agree	19	21.1
			Strongly Agree	34	37.8
			Strongly Disagree	2	2.2
			Disagree	10	11.1
Item 2	3.70	1.043	Not Sure	24	26.7
			Agree	31	34.4
			Strongly Agree	23	25.6
			Strongly Disagree	2	2.2
			Disagree	12	13.3
Item 3	3.63	1.033	Not Sure	22	24.4
			Agree	35	38.9
			Strongly Agree	19	21.1
			Total- 90

Discussion

This research attempted to explain whether tourists are halting or postponing or even changing their destination and path choices with the effects of knowledge, health risk and personality destination or not. Through the development and testing of a structural model using SEM (SmartPLS 3.0), this study examined several concepts in the literature on tourist knowledge, tourist health risk, destination personality, tourist perception and hesitation. Test results explicitly indicated that tourist knowledge and health risk have a positive and significant effect on the hesitation and tourist perception to mediate ties between tourist knowledge and destination personality with hesitation.

Previous studies were also connected with the behavior of tourism decision-making in detail, while tourist hesitation remained underestimated to date. Tourist knowledge and health risk are considered to be the main independent indicators of effect in the current study, focused on the customer's decision-making and behavioral theory. In addition, the above relationship has been relatively overlooked by the current study. Although it is difficult to eliminate tourist health risks, previous researchers proposed that tourist practitioners increase tourists' willingness to travel to tourism destinations by reducing their perception of risk. Most have noted how perceptions of tourist risks have been reduced. Accordingly, this study uses the knowledge of tourists to adjust the impact of interpreting the risk of tourists on hesitation. Empirical results are consistent with Cho et al. (2006) findings that the greater the knowledge and risk to the health of consumers when deciding on their purchases, the more likely they are to doubt their decision-making. One potential explanation in the field of tourism is that, during the decision-making process, tourists cannot show the consistency of their offerings using the intangibility of tourism similar information, which makes it difficult for them to recognize and even envisage changing their previous choices.

However, in terms of the theoretical framework with the mediating solution of tourist perception, the present study varies from that of Cho et al. (2006). Based on the previous research, two key perspectives are established; first, subjective product knowledge is closely linked to purchasing confidence. Second, it is subjective product knowledge which decides purchases rather than objective product knowledge. Based on the results, if the tourist thinks that he already knows a certain destination, the effect of the interpretation of the tourist risk on hesitation is minimized, so it is easier for the tourist to make decisions on the spot visit. This discovery not only supports the results of the previous study but also shows the value of contextual product knowledge in both theory and tourism.

Generally speaking, hesitation is inaccurate if no risk is assumed to exist when tourists fail to decide on destinations and routes. Tourist hesitation makes it impossible for tourism practitioners to persuade clients to take an immediate decision on procurement and to improve the willingness of prospective customers to move to other travel agencies and thereby negatively impact sales efficiency. Moreover, when tourists themselves are concerned, hesitation is likely to result in a lack of choice of tours due to the seasonal nature of the tourism services, whereas other travel agencies with different prices and routes could be able to choose the same tours. However, it needs more time and money to look at the evidence and make new choices. Tourists should also work on reducing the volume of tourism hesitation.

Tourism and marketing practices are now focused instead on on-the-spot sales systems, infrastructure, and web interface design. Tourists will learn more about destinations and itineraries from the web interface. However, this approach raises questions as to whether the contents of the websites reflect the real products accurately (Afshar Jahanshahi et al., 2020a, 2020b). If the tourism administrators are unable to discuss the particulars of the trips with the tourists at their initial meeting in a sincere way, tourism will definitely miss the participation of a significant component of the industry. This study suggests that tourism managers should establish subjective, target-relevant object knowledge and provide complete tangible descriptions. In advertising campaigns with a direct effect upon consumers, regular competition for products of tourism and corresponding competitions can take place. In addition, managers are expected to not neglect or handle confused guests as troublemakers but rather to respond to their concerns. In addition, this study offers pathways for ongoing research. Doubting was originally a style of decision-making; decision-making is a more stable characteristic of the decision-maker, not merely the normal pattern of action (Thunholm, 2004). Tourists refuse to portray fish that have not yet been captured by tourism operators' networks. In market segmentation studies, the use of additional extract characteristics from these specific market segments and the development of suitable promotional approaches are therefore urgently needed.

Conclusion and policy implications

The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the knowledge, health risks of tourists, and destination personality with regard to their hesitation in southern Bangladesh—a destination recently recognized for its risky status. Several factors and their effects on hesitation, as well as perception, have also been investigated. A sample of 322 Bangladeshi prospective tourists was used to get the study outcomes. The Smart PLS 3.0 (SEM-Structural Equation Modeling) was run to test the study hypotheses. Our results show that AVE value of every variable is above 0.50, the value of CR and Cronbach’s Alpha is above 0.70, and the value of factor loadings is above 0.60 which are the suggested or accepted range. The NFI value is 0.899 which is close to the accepted range. Therefore, the conceptual model is best fit with the study objectives and hypotheses. Furthermore, the square root of the AVE (in bold) of all variables describes the highest result within a range of 0.839–0.872. Thus, it is well comprehensible that discriminant validity is sustained among the variables and accredited for this estimated model of the study.

The results of the study reveal a positive and significant relationship between tourist knowledge and tourist health risk with tourist hesitation. It is, therefore, concluded that any increase or decrease in tourist knowledge will influence tourist hesitation to travel to tourist places. We did not find any conventional relationship between destination personality and tourist hesitation, another result that signifies that any increase or decrease in destination personality will influence tourist hesitation to travel to tourist places. Furthermore, tourist perception mediates the connection between tourist knowledge and destination personality with sound tourist hesitation, a thing that indicates that there is a role of tourist perception to increase or decrease intention between tourist knowledge and destination personality with tourist hesitation. Besides, our study claims that tourist perception does not mediate the connection between tourist health risk and tourist hesitation; this result indicates that there is no role in tourist perception.

Tourist hesitation study has mainly underscored the magnitude of destinations and discussed a wide range of tourism marketing strategies (Kerstetter & Pennington-Gray, 1999; Pan & Ryan, 2007). However, the results suggest that travel agents perceive both men and women to be equally important instead of only evaluating the needs of individual tourists while promoting or selling tourism products and services. In addition, tourism managers should focus on shaping actual destination images and try to explain all relevant information to prevent tourism hesitations and decision-making regarding the destination. Initially, hesitation was one of the decisions that were not only a natural pattern of operation but also a trustworthy characteristic of decision-makers (Thunholm, 2004). Moreover, it seems that tourism managers have not paid adequate attention to hesitating tourists. More studies on the segmentation of the industry, the implementation of the reluctant characteristics of this particular sector, and the effective promotional approaches are, therefore, urgently needed (Jahanshahi & Brem, 2018).

With reference to the results of this study, it would be possible to extend this study by further analysis of the idea of tourist hesitation and the rationale for decision-making to understand the effect of perception differences on hesitation and by using other behavioral factors such as the updated guide to the impact of gender differences on tourism decisions. In general, it is always misleading that there is no loss when tourists fail to make choices about the destination. Tourist hesitation, however, poses difficulties for tourism professionals to persuade tourists to make their transactions quickly and to increase the chance of consumers being diverted to other travel companies that adversely affect the quality of their sales. From a tourist's point of view, hesitation is, which may lead to the perfect tour being overlooked due to the perishability of satisfaction, is subjective, whereas other travel agencies offer similar trips at different prices and itineraries. However, looking at other journeys will take longer to collect information and make new decisions. Hence, tourism professionals are supposed to focus their attention on the reduction in tourists' hesitation.

The evolution of the theory of understanding tourism is a cross-relation among economics, tourism, psychology and other topics. Subjective tourism insights are more prevalent in theoretical and empirical studies, although the study of tourism measurement and description are comparatively less prevalent (Afshar Jahanshahi & Brem, 2019). The paper attempts to examine perception and hesitation from the point of view of the management of the safety of travel and the spatial frameworks of tourism. Regardless of the need for fluidity, tourists were held in place by patterns and waterways, thereby imitating congestion and beyond local parking capacity. A range of temporary events and monitoring manuals tailored to a straight-time clock pose a problem for tourists. While there is a need to go with the flow, transport adaptability and speed to achieve destinations should be addressed. Pandemics emerge infrequently, yet COVID-19 impact slowed down the economy of every region. It demotivated prospective tourists to spend their holidays in their desired destinations. Nonetheless, prospective tourists will travel to attractive tourist places when they feel safe and comfortable to move on. With the huge drive of vaccination against COVID-19, tourism industry will definitely pick up momentum.

It is difficult to predict social and political transition in light of these results of this study. In any event, it is important to understand how these results are identified with evolving climate change mitigation strategies for the future of low-carbon travel industry. This is viewed in terms of the government policy and the strategy of the tourism industry. To begin with, the government's contact policy should be used to subvert discourses that maintain unsustainable practices, such as the intelligibility of traveling disputes, and to establish strong, moderate travel perception. There is an opportunity for developing new stories about tourism travel that direct people to more sustainable practices. Governments and decision-makers should rely on these factors and ensure protection for tourists and mitigate health risks. Leaving these problems behind, no country will survive any global pandemic, consequently, their economies and GDP growth would be damaged. This is the moment to support the global economy with great prosperity, and sustainable tourism can deliver this blessing without investment.

Limitations and future studies

Each research has to face some difficulties or limitations after it has been completed; this research is not above these limits. The underlying significant limitation that we face in the present study is that it was conducted before the emergency case caused by the latest global pandemic. Subsequently, features such as shifts in behavior, inspirations and perceptions relevant to and brought on by this new situation were not considered at any time. Conversely, the research focused on exploring factors affecting tourists’ hesitation to travel. Without exception, this relevance would be motivated by this current situation. Subsequently, it would be extraordinarily useful to emulate this function in the future, as full mobility within national regions begins to be allowed and tourists are allowed worldwide. An aspect that was not addressed in this study is the consequences that a destination would have had, but did not take the inspiration for its choice.

Due to the distinctive government campaigns that are, by and large, designed to achieve indicative benefits by visiting those destinations, we believe that this aspect will change due to the increased impact felt by the tourist. It is, therefore, necessary to discover the prescriptions that help the tourism sector. Improving sustainable tourism will help to ease the obvious reluctance of tourists to visit destinations with tremendous centralization of individuals. Subsequently, it will also be intriguing to bring a study that considers the activities carried out by the tourism offer to validate its impact on the sustainable development of tourism. In future studies, tourists’ attitudes can be used as a moderator among the relationships of knowledge, health risk, and destination personality with tourist hesitation. This study mainly focused on a developing country like Bangladesh. Therefore, future studies can be conducted in developed countries (i.e. Singapore, Malaysia, UAE, USA, Italy, and so on).